The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the identity and source of the investor. Since the AO relied mainly on tracing further layers of transactions without adverse evidence against the assessee, the addition under section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that without rejecting the books or identifying concrete discrepancies, expenses cannot be disallowed on an ad-hoc basis. The Revenues appeal challenging deletion of the addition was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits recorded in regular books of account cannot be treated as unexplained investments under section 69. Since the books were not rejected and no contrary evidence was produced, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that although estimation of income was justified due to absence of books and non-filing of return, applying the 8% presumptive rate automatically was excessive. Considering the nature of the garment business, it reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of bank credits.
The Tribunal held that determining exemption eligibility after retrospective registration is not a simple computational adjustment. Such matters cannot be decided at the return processing stage under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that mere non-response to notices issued to vendors cannot justify disallowance of large business expenses when documentary evidence and accepted turnover exist. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
The ITAT Chennai held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Additions based only on special audit findings were therefore quashed.
ITAT held that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) as there was no advance tax liability under Section 209. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee is needs to establish the expenditure which is unreasonably high. Thus, additional evidence filed for expense pertaining to ‘shortage and quality cuts’ needs complete verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
