The Tribunal held that full disallowance of purchases was not justified where corresponding sales and quantitative stock records were accepted. ITAT sustained only estimated disallowance at 12.5% of disputed purchases.
Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for all FAR functions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s “double profit attribution” theory and deleted the enhanced PE addition.
Pune ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Totgars does not apply to such claims.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that interest on tax arrears is compensatory, not penal. It ruled that such interest qualifies as a deductible business expense.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that prior to the 2023 amendment, returns filed within the broader time under Section 139 were eligible for exemption. It ruled that updated returns could not be denied benefits retrospectively.
The tribunal held that no late fee under Section 234E can be imposed for periods prior to 1 June 2015 due to absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A. The levy was deleted following consistent judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbursed. It emphasized the concept of real income and pass-through structure.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
