The Tribunal observed that taxpayers opting for presumptive taxation are not required to maintain books of account and therefore Section 68 could not be applied merely on the basis of bank statements.
Delhi ITAT held that issues relating to source of donations and cash deposits should generally be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section 12AB.
The ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The ITAT held that once profit is estimated on unaccounted sales, separate additions for wages and operational expenditure cannot be made again under section 69C. The ruling treated such additions as double taxation of the same income stream.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond six years under Section 153C are permissible only where escaped income represented in the form of assets exceeds or is likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakh. Since this statutory condition was not satisfied, the assessments were annulled as time-barred.
The ITAT held that cash deposited by a money transfer agent during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained income when the funds belonged to principal payment service providers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee merely acted as a collection agent and transferred the amounts to the principals.
The Bangalore Bench held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return is directory and not mandatory in circumstances where the audit report becomes available during appeal proceedings. Relief under Sections 11 and 12A was restored.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that preferential location charges for flats form part of construction services and cannot be taxed separately. The Court quashed earlier advance ruling orders after relying on the GST Council recommendation and government clarification.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer wrongly stated that the original return was never scrutinized. The Tribunal ruled that such factual errors while recording reasons showed complete non-application of mind.
The Supreme Court held that disclosure of hash value and expert certification under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has a rational nexus with ensuring authenticity and integrity of electronic records.
