Tribunal held that natural justice was violated when notices were sent only by email despite explicit instructions otherwise. Appeals were restored with costs, and the Assessing Officer must reconsider the case after allowing additional evidence.
Tribunal deleted Rs. 10 lakh addition made under Section 68 where lender’s deposits were not independently verified. The assessee had no failure in proving identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness. Key takeaway: mere timing of lender’s bank deposits cannot trigger Section 68 addition without corroborative evidence
The ITAT held that excise-duty exemption for backward-area units is capital in nature since the incentive aims at industrial growth, not business profits. The ruling protects such incentives from tax under normal and AMT provisions.
The assessee’s capital-gain computation and share-transaction trail matched disclosed data. ITAT held the AO’s conclusion to be unsupported and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT held that once investments were accepted in prior assessments, their sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that Section 68 cannot be invoked without fresh incriminating evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee proved repayment of ₹1 crore via banking channels, Revenue must first disprove the evidence before invoking sections 68 or 69C. Both the addition and related interest disallowance of ₹3.78 lakh were deleted.
The Tribunal held that a short-term loan received from a sister concern cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The loan was for business purposes, not for shareholder benefit. Key takeaway: transactions between sister concerns do not automatically attract dividend treatment even if there is common shareholding.
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
The Tribunal remanded the appeal after the CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee can now submit confirmations to substantiate claims. Key takeaway: procedural lapses should not prevent merit-based adjudication.
