The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid without proving both error and revenue prejudice. The AO’s order was restored as valid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid when the assessee has fully disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny. The reassessment was quashed for lack of new material evidence.
The Tribunal examined a case where the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and sundry creditors with supporting documents. It upheld estimation of income at 8% of turnover as a reasonable method when the genuineness of expenses could not be proved.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
ITAT Pune held that creation of artificial intangible asset i.e. goodwill in intra-group merger is merely a colourable transaction out between the Holding Company and the subsidiary company. Accordingly, depreciation claimed thereon deserves to be disallowed.
ITAT Pune held that time limit of six months for filing an application u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act applies only to trusts which have not started charitable activities and not to trust which has already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional registration. Accordingly, application held to be valid and maintainable.
ITAT Pune held that failure to deposit the entire amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat Section 54F claim if full investment is made within the stipulated period. The ruling follows Karnataka High Court precedent. The addition of ₹91.45 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding that the assessee’s conditional withdrawal of reopening grounds was not properly considered. The matter was directed for fresh adjudication to address legal and factual issues.
The Tribunal observed that similar deductions were allowed in earlier scrutiny assessments. Finding no error in the Assessing Officer’s view, it annulled the revision proceedings.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is determined on an estimated basis. In absence of clear concealment, the Rs.5.41 lakh penalty was deleted.
