The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that balancing figure between the slump sale consideration and the value of identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights in the nature of an intangible asset, and depreciation thereon is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the surviving limitation period available after applying TOLA and Supreme Court directions. As a result, the reassessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
The ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society on bank deposits qualifies as business income. Such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT ruled that mere acceptance of exemption without examining statutory amendments constitutes non-application of mind. The Principal Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 where binding High Court rulings were ignored.
The Court held that payment of principal tax does not exempt a taxpayer from the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appealing penalty. Compliance with Section 107(6) is compulsory.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to verify discrepancies in quantitative stock details justified revisionary action. Mere calling of documents without proper examination invites Section 263 proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that the AO disallowed 50% of warranty provisions and 25% of liabilities without justification. It held that in absence of specific defects in remand proceedings, such ad hoc disallowances cannot survive.
