The Tribunal held that audited separate books proved correct profits, making the AO’s proportionate estimation unsustainable. 80P deduction cannot be reduced when business-wise accounts are properly maintained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to challenge both the reopening notice u/s 148 and the addition of ₹2.25 Cr. NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal was found inappropriate in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 27-day delay after accepting the assessee’s affidavit explaining non-intentional default and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the first appeal ex parte without addressing merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with full opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted that the delay arose from an inadvertent error by the assessee’s prior tax consultant during e-filing. It ruled that such a bona fide mistake should not deprive the taxpayer of statutory appellate remedies. All issues were remanded for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application solely for delayed filing was improper and directed a denovo review under Section 80G. The is that delayed applications may still be examined on merits.
ITAT Pune held that the Section 263 revision was unsustainable as the AO conducted adequate scrutiny and expenses were recovered from associated enterprises. Expenditure classification did not make the assessment prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Section 148 notice appeared on the portal after 31.03.2021, raising doubts about its validity. The matter was restored to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit explanations. The ruling underscores strict compliance with notice issuance requirements under Section 148.
The Tribunal found that an off-market transaction, by itself, does not establish bogus capital gains when supporting records are intact and no direct involvement in price manipulation is shown. The exemption under Section 10(38) was therefore allowed, rejecting additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot suffer due to the AO’s inaction under section 270AA(4), directing grant of immunity and cancelling the 270A penalty.
