The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
ITAT Pune held that filing a revised return after the Department detects wrong deductions is not voluntary. Since the assessee acted only after detection, penalty u/s 270A(9) for misreporting was rightly imposed at 200% of tax.
ITAT Pune held that reopening based on old investigation data was invalid where transactions were already verified under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the penny stock gains genuine as supported by Demat, bank, and STT records.
This case clarifies that eligibility for the Section 80-IA deduction must be verified project-by-project, irrespective of a taxpayer’s status in a previous year. The Tribunal held that only projects previously approved by the Settlement Commission are eligible, requiring fresh scrutiny for all new or unverified contracts.
The Pune ITAT quashed a Section 263 revision, holding that interest earned by a credit society from deposits in co-operative banks qualifies for the Section 80P deduction as part of business income. The ruling affirms that the AO’s acceptance of the claim, being a plausible view based on precedents, cannot be set aside merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
The issue was the summary dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite giving only a one-day notice for hearing and a timely adjournment request. The ITAT ruled that dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back, emphasizing the requirement for adequate opportunity of hearing in appellate proceedings.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹14 lakh cash deposit addition during demonetization, ruling that retaining cash from duly accounted sources for a long period is not grounds for suspicion.
