ITAT sustained PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that AO’s mechanical acceptance of a low profit margin return without proper inquiry was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue’s interest. AO failed to examine applicability of mandatory audit under Section 44AB and correctness of declared profit ratio in liquor trade.
Tribunal observed that AO accepted returned income without any independent examination or inquiry. As major issues like estimation of profit in liquor trade and tax audit requirements were ignored, assessment was held erroneous. Pr. CIT’s revision under Section 263 was sustained.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act towards deemed dividend is vacated since loan is advanced in the preceding year. Therefore, in absence of any payment by the company in the current year, there is no justification to held that amount is received as deemed dividend.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act made without invalidating evidences establishing identity/ creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
ITAT Raipur set aside the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed before the 01.06.2015 amendment to Section 200A. Following the Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an enabling provision for computation, the levy of a late fee for the period before that date is unenforceable.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
ITAT Upholds Taxpayer Rights, Limits Section 148 Reassessments on Net Income: ITAT confirmed that income tax reassessments must be based on net taxable income, not gross sale proceeds. Notices issued beyond the three-year window without exceeding ₹50 lakh threshold are invalid.
