The Tribunal noted that the cash was seized in a case involving narcotics, making the assessees story of property-related pooling of funds implausible. With no credible corroboration and significant inconsistencies, the addition under section 69A was upheld. The ruling stresses that factual context can outweigh self-serving explanations.
The applicant clarified that although the device incorporates MIMO technology, it operates through both wired and wireless modes. The ruling request emphasized that MIMO alone should not exclude it from concessional BCD eligibility.
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
Tribunal remands the matter after finding that bank records showing cash withdrawals were not examined. The key takeaway is that cash-in-hand cant be treated as unexplained without proper factual verification.
ITAT condones delay in filing appeal as the assessee’s police duties prevented timely submission, restoring the matter for adjudication on merits.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident investments sourced from foreign salary cannot be treated as unexplained income, deleting ₹2 crore addition under Section 69.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the lender’s identity and creditworthiness via banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. It was held that doubts regarding the lender’s own creditors are irrelevant for the assessee’s assessment prior to the 2022 amendment, provided the primary transaction is genuine.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the allowance of management fees after verifying proper documentation and business purpose, emphasizing that payments to a parent company are deductible if fully supported.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reopening of an income tax assessment because the assessee had filed a complete return and the AO failed to record valid reasons, highlighting the need for proper statutory compliance in reassessment.
The ruling held that hired infrastructure and fit-outs form part of immovable property and therefore constitute a mixed supply under leasing or rental services. The supply was classified under Heading 9973 and taxed at 18%.
