ITAT held that absence of earlier evidence led to addition under section 68. Now, assessee allowed to submit all books, bank statements, and capital accounts, subject to compliance conditions.
The Income Tax authorities treated LTCG from Kappac Pharma shares as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal confirmed the transactions were genuine, supported by demat and broker records. The addition under Section 68 and related commission expenses were deleted.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash reflected in 26AS represents pass-through freight receipts, not actual turnover. Commission income below the audit threshold, hence tax audit under section 44AB was not required and penalty u/s 271B deleted.
ITAT partly allowed appeal against additions under section 144, applying 6% net profit instead of AO’s 8% on total cash deposits. Returned income under section 44AD was deducted, and normal tax rates applied instead of section 115BBE.
The Tribunal condoned a 294-day delay and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for AY 2017-18. Cash deposits of ₹49,80,700/- were initially treated as unexplained income under section 68. The ruling allows the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT Jabalpur held that CIT(A) cannot blindly follow PCIT directions under section 263. Appellate authorities must independently consider evidence and objections before confirming additions.
The ITAT held that specific-purpose government grants for institutional development are corpus by their inherent character. The AO’s addition of ₹1.7 crore to gross receipts was quashed, emphasizing that utilized grants for setting up assets cannot be treated as income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that banks can claim deductions for provisions for bad debts on total income, including capital gains, rejecting the CIT’s restriction to business income.
The Supreme Court held that the without aid of power exemption cannot apply when any essential step, like stentering, uses electricity. Continuous multi-unit processing is treated as a single power-aided manufacture.
