The tribunal examined whether the tax authority correctly calculated allowable promotional expenses. It held that the disallowance based on an incorrect assumption about the number of gifts issued was unsustainable.
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 issue was whether the entire bank deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69. The tribunal held that deposits linked to business activity cannot be fully taxed and directed estimation of profit at 8%.
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
The tribunal considered whether total bank credits could be added as unexplained money. It held that when deposits are consistent with declared turnover and business activity, they cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The tribunal noted discrepancies in the dispatch register used to prove issuance of the notice. Because the records did not inspire confidence, the tribunal held the reassessment notice to be time-barred.
The Tribunal held that when the difference between purchase price and DVO valuation falls within the 10% tolerance band, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii). The addition based on stamp duty value was therefore deleted.
ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held that failure to start charitable activities cannot by itself justify denial of registration under section 12AB. Since the trust’s objects were charitable and proposed activities were genuine, the rejection of registration and 80G approval was set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
