The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer has examined and accepted the source of property investment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot reopen the issue under section 263. The ruling emphasizes finality of AO’s findings.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that property attachment under PMLA requires prima facie proof of a money trail. Mere suspicion or association with accused persons is insufficient to sustain attachment.
The appeal was filed late due to ongoing police proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal held this to be sufficient cause and restored the appeal for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a bad debt claim involving factual and legal analysis cannot be disallowed during section 143(1) processing. Such issues must be examined through regular assessment proceedings, not summary adjustments.
The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
The case revolved around treating bank deposits as unexplained income without following the statutory mandate of rejecting books of account. The Tribunal reaffirmed that compliance with section 145(3) is mandatory before estimation, and granted full relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned an 893-day delay citing genuine medical reasons and decided the appeal on merits. It held that cash deposits arising from business receipts cannot be split arbitrarily and must be assessed through reasonable profit estimation.
This case dealt with an addition confirmed without adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal held that passing an order without considering filed replies is unsustainable, and directed a de novo assessment.
The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid where notices and orders showed shifting facts and no independent reasoning. Changing bases across stages reflected a casual approach that vitiated jurisdiction.
