The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The issue was whether a religious object in the trust deed bars 80G approval. The Tribunal held that where actual activities are purely charitable and no religious expenditure is incurred, approval cannot be denied.
The issue was whether religious objects alone could defeat an 80G claim. The Tribunal ruled that compliance with the 5% expenditure limit requires fresh examination.
The Assessing Officer treated full bank deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that agricultural turnover cannot be taxed entirely and allowed only an estimated 10% addition.
The AO questioned genuineness and love and affection behind the gift. The ITAT held that once relationship and capacity are proved through documents, no addition can survive.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked despite detailed verification of unsecured loans during scrutiny. The ITAT held that once enquiries are duly conducted, section 263 cannot be used for a deeper re-probe.
ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
The issue was whether an ex-parte reassessment for unexplained cash deposits could stand despite total non-compliance. The ITAT held that substantive justice required one final opportunity and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
