The Tribunal held that although estimation of income was justified due to absence of books and non-filing of return, applying the 8% presumptive rate automatically was excessive. Considering the nature of the garment business, it reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of bank credits.
The Tribunal held that determining exemption eligibility after retrospective registration is not a simple computational adjustment. Such matters cannot be decided at the return processing stage under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that mere non-response to notices issued to vendors cannot justify disallowance of large business expenses when documentary evidence and accepted turnover exist. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 9A cannot automatically result in denial of exemption under Section 11. The issue was sent back for reconsideration after examining the condonation application before the Commissioner.
Supreme Court held that public servant can be duly convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of evidence inspite of the fact that co-accused is acquitted of conspiracy charges.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
