The issue involved estimation of income based solely on bank credits without supporting verification. The Tribunal remanded the case, directing assessment based on GST and VAT turnover.
The Tribunal held that industrial tariff charged by electricity boards is the correct benchmark for CPP transactions. It rejected the use of generator procurement rates adopted by the TPO.
A three-day delay in filing an appeal was rejected by CIT(A), but the tribunal held that minor delays should not defeat justice. The matter was remanded for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that advances received under an uncompleted sale agreement are not taxable. Income arises only when transfer or forfeiture occurs.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled that absence of adverse evidence makes such additions unsustainable.
ACIT Vs Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Nagpur) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur, arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Year 2015–16. The assessee, engaged in design, development, […]
The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
The case examined whether bank deposits could be taxed as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies only to entries in books of account, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Since the amount was capital in nature, the addition was deleted. The ruling clarifies the scope of disallowance provisions.
The case involved an addition based on AIR information regarding a property transaction. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the assessee’s documentary evidence remained unchallenged by the department.
