The issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal ex-parte without giving detailed reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking order violates section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Where Escapement Is Below ₹50 Lakh — ITAT Pune Quashes Reassessment The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment for AY 2016-17, holding that the notice under section 148 dated 27-07-2022 was without jurisdiction, as the alleged income escaping assessment was […]
The issue was whether deduction under section 80P could be allowed when the return was filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with section 80AC made the assessment erroneous, justifying revision under section 263.
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed in the society’s hands. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that once cash is admitted to belong to members, no addition under section 68 can be made in the society’s assessment.
Whether interest earned on fixed deposits by a credit co-operative society qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that interest from depositing surplus business funds in permitted banks is attributable to the credit business and eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest after noting fresh evidence indicating business utilisation of borrowed funds. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with an opportunity to substantiate the claim.
The Tribunal held that a manufacturing company failing the 75% trading turnover filter applied by the TPO cannot be retained as a comparable. Dilution of the filter by the DRP only to accommodate one entity was found impermissible, leading to deletion of the comparable.
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition has been deleted. Once the foundation fails, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must also fall.
The Tribunal examined whether a large consultancy payment was allowable when the assessee failed to establish its genuineness and business necessity. It upheld the disallowance, holding that mere claims without credible evidence cannot justify deduction of professional expenses.
