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.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
The case addressed whether additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. The Court held that such additions are impermissible in completed assessments, reinforcing settled legal principles.
The court examined whether a final assessment order could stand without issuing a draft order to an eligible assessee. It held that bypassing the mandatory draft assessment process invalidates the final order and renders it void.
The court examined whether reopening an assessment based on previously scrutinized facts was valid. It held that reassessment without fresh tangible material amounts to a change of opinion and is without jurisdiction.
ITAT Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack of evidence but restricts income estimation to 4%, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are to be treated as co-operative societies. The ruling resolves disputes on eligibility of such income.
ITAT ruled that selling and distribution expenses cannot form part of work-in-progress. Such costs do not contribute to inventory creation and must be treated as revenue expenditure. The decision reinforces accounting standards in tax treatment.
The Court held that compensation paid to buyers for surrendering rights was incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature. It emphasized commercial expediency as a key factor. The ruling clarifies treatment of such payments in real estate business.
