ITAT Delhi held that addition towards cash deposit during demonetization period is not sustainable since the same is redeposit of cash which was withdrawn for making salary payment or incurring any expenditure. Accordingly, the addition is deleted.
The reassessments were initiated after four years based on section 68 but concluded under section 115BBC. The ITAT held that absence of valid jurisdiction and mismatch of sections rendered the reassessments void.
The regulator held that payment of development charges and interest flows from statutory schemes already upheld by courts. The key takeaway is that settled judicial findings cannot be reopened under competition law.
The issue was whether a single, consolidated approval under section 153D for multiple assessees is legally valid. The ITAT held that such mechanical approval shows no application of mind and vitiates the entire search assessment.
The issue was whether capital gains could be computed under section 50C without referring valuation to the DVO despite the assessee’s objection. The ITAT held that denial of a DVO reference violates statutory rights and remanded the matter for fresh valuation.
The issue was whether unexplained deposits of ₹94.89 lakh could be sustained when evidence was not produced due to a serious family medical crisis. The ITAT held that genuine hardship warranted a fresh opportunity and remanded the matter for proper verification.
The Revenue sustained addition by assuming 50% of cash withdrawals were used for household expenses. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion-based estimates cannot replace evidence and granted substantial relief.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the underlying assessment was quashed. The ITAT held that once the 153A assessment was annulled, the penalty under section 270A automatically fell.
The Revenue made additions on alleged penny-stock transactions under section 68. The ITAT held that once section 153C jurisdiction itself fails, the additions automatically fall without examination on merits.
The Supreme Court held that leasing residential property for use as a student or working-professional hostel qualifies for GST exemption. The ruling confirms that long-term residential use, not the lessee’s personal occupation, is decisive.
