The Tribunal ruled that an issue conclusively settled by ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court cannot be revisited by the AO under Section 254. Deduction under Section 10A was ordered to be allowed.
The Tribunal rejected full disallowance of alleged bogus purchases and adopted a balanced approach by estimating profit at 10%. Section 68 was held to be wrongly invoked.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, AO directed to recompute book profit after allowing indexation.
Once the reassessment was quashed for jurisdictional and limitation defects, the Revenues appeal on merits became infructuous. The decision underscores the primacy of legal compliance in reassessment cases.
The Tribunal clarified that section 292BB only cures defects in service of notice, not complete absence of a valid jurisdictional notice. Participation in proceedings cannot validate an assessment initiated by an incompetent authority.
The Revenue alleged unexplained cash credits despite documentary evidence. The Tribunal ruled that once loans are repaid with interest and TDS, Section 68 cannot be invoked in isolation.
Cash deposits were added as unexplained money due to alleged lack of proof. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible and documented source cannot be rejected without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of rental receipts as income from house property because the companys principal object was not property letting. It ruled that business income treatment cannot be claimed merely based on incidental objects in the memorandum.
The Tribunal found that inadvertent allotment of two PANs led to duplication of bank accounts and misreporting of income. Proper reconciliation was directed before making any addition.
The case examined whether other additions can be made when the reopening issue is not sustained. The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot be used as a roving enquiry.
