Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the AO erred in making additions under section 68 without properly analyzing the assessee's financial statements and VAT returns, which were undisputed and did not indicate any discrepancies. The tribunal found that the AO could not reject the assessee's voluntary offer to add 15% of cash sales as unaccounted income and then make an ad hoc addition of 30% without substantive evidence. Since the AO failed to dispute the books of account or stock-in-trade, the 15% addition should have been accepted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the addition to 15%, quashing the excess ad hoc disallowance.
The ITAT held that the AO erred in making additions under section 68 without properly analyzing the assessee's financial statements and VAT returns, which were undisputed and did not indicate any discrepancies. The tribunal found that the AO could not reject the assessee's voluntary offer to add 15% of cash sales as unaccounted income and then make an ad hoc addition of 30% without substantive evidence. Since the AO failed to dispute the books of account or stock-in-trade, the 15% addition should have been accepted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the addition to 15%, quashing the excess ad hoc disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.