The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
Pune ITAT dismissed a firm’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s order to tax Rs 19.44 lakh in unexplained cash and stock found in a survey under the stringent Section 115BBE.
ITAT Pune ruled that the CPC erred in restricting TDS credit for a cooperative society based on a turnover mismatch in Form 26AS. The difference was due to the same sale being subjected to double TDS under both Section 194-O and Section 194-Q, wrongly inflating the receipts and TDS entries.
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that the alleged unexplained investment transaction occurred in the earlier financial year. The ruling emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s duty to verify the correct assessment year before invoking Section 69, as liability must attach to the right period.
Pune ITAT ruled against adding the perquisite value of rent-free accommodation, finding that the amount was already included and taxed as part of the directors’ disclosed salary.
ITAT Pune held that assessee was engaged in livestock transport on commission basis and not in trading, directing AO to apply 1.5% profit rate instead of 8% estimated earlier.
The ITAT set aside the rejection of Life Eternal Trusts 80G registration and remanded the case to re-evaluate if the trusts religious expenses exceeded the 5% limit. The Tribunal instructed the CIT to consider the trust’s new evidence on expense miscategorization.
ITAT Pune annulled reassessment proceedings, holding that approval by PCIT instead of PCCIT for notices issued after three years was contrary to Section 151.
ITAT Pune held that interest credited on fixed deposits in assessee’s name remains taxable, even if underlying development agreement was later cancelled, as assessee retained ownership of account and TDS was deducted under her PAN.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
