The issue was whether cash deposits from business sales could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. ITAT held that recorded cash sales forming part of turnover cannot be taxed as unexplained credits.
The ITAT held that issuing a demand notice and penalty along with a draft order makes it a final order. Non-compliance with Section 144C rendered the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot make a fresh addition without issuing an enhancement notice. Cash redeposits from explained loan withdrawals were accepted as genuine.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
The Tribunal held that appeal must be verified by the authorized principal officer. Filing by an incorrect person renders the appeal invalid and not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that ESOP costs are employee compensation and qualify as revenue expenditure. Disallowance treating them as capital expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds is business income of a credit society. Such income qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that adding both cash deposits and withdrawals may result in double taxation. The case was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that loss from discontinued operations cannot be restricted without evidence. Fully supported expenses must be allowed under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that eligibility for Section 80P depends on actual activities, not the society’s name. Deduction was allowed as the society provided credit facilities to members.
