ITAT remanded the unexplained cash credit addition for verification of full loan repayment, highlighting that repayment within a reasonable time negates the addition under section 68.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 44AD, recognizing the small kirana shop’s sales and deposits as genuine business income. Bank deposits corresponded with daily sales, and withdrawals matched purchase requirements, showing a consistent business pattern.
ITAT held that discretionary trusts with unknown beneficiary shares must be taxed at the maximum marginal rate unless statutory exceptions apply, restoring the matter for verification.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The ITAT quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, observing that the foundational notice was issued after the permissible date. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines under TOLA cannot be extended retroactively. Subsequent orders based on the invalid notice were held without jurisdiction.
The AO’s assessment included detailed examination of depreciation, warranty provisions, and Section 80G deductions for CSR donations. ITAT Ahmedabad found that the AO’s conclusions were plausible and in line with judicial precedents. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, affirming that the AO’s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
ITAT held that a protective addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not survive once related substantive addition had been deleted in subsequent year. Ruling confirms that protective additions cannot stand independently when their basis no longer exists.
The Tribunal held that once CPC allowed the 80JJAA deduction through a subsequent Section 154 order, the earlier rectification appeal no longer survived. The appeal was dismissed as academic, with a clarification that no extra deduction beyond what CPC allowed could be granted.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal of the AY 2018-19 appeal, restoring the matter to CIT(A) for merits-based hearing. The assessee was allowed to present evidence regarding ₹3.74 crore unexplained investment and estimated profits.
