The Tribunal held that reopening completed scrutiny assessments beyond four years is invalid when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. The key takeaway is that Section 147’s first proviso is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
The issue was whether old unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years. The tribunal upheld unlimited carry-forward post-2001 amendment, reaffirming that such depreciation can be set off without time restriction.
The issue was whether agricultural income was rightly disallowed for lack of proof. The tribunal deleted the addition after the Revenue’s own inspection confirmed active cultivation, reinforcing that verified facts override assumptions.
The issue was determination of income when the assessee failed to maintain books of account. The Tribunal held that an 8% or 4% estimate was excessive and fixed profit at a reasonable 2% of turnover.
The matter was sent back as the appellate authority did not examine the plea for allowance in the year of later TDS payment. The ruling stresses complete adjudication of all grounds raised.
It was held that transport charges cannot be disallowed when PAN-based TDS, ledger matching, and banking trails exist. The ruling confirms that non-response to notices alone is insufficient.
The reopening relied on a bank account number that did not match the account from which transactions were considered. The Tribunal restored the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that reassessment must be based on accurate bank details.
The Tribunal held that earning income as a percentage of hospital turnover is commercial, not charitable. Section 80G approval was rightly denied for lack of genuine charitable application.
ITAT Ranchi directed the AO to readjudicate the tax liability for a ₹23.5 lakh cash deposit after the assessee claimed the bank wrongly attached his PAN to a company’s account. The AO must verify if the company disclosed the account and had adequate cash for the deposit.
Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.
