The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in depositing employees’ PF caused by proven payment gateway failure constitutes impossibility of performance. Genuine attempts and evidence justified allowing the deduction despite strict timelines.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
The issue was whether further disallowance could be made after a suo motu 30% disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal ruled that any additional adjustment amounts to double disallowance and is impermissible.
The issue was whether a regular assessment could survive once section 153C was triggered for a non-searched person. The Tribunal ruled that pending scrutiny abates, making an assessment under section 143(3) void from inception.
The issue was whether reassessment can stand on an unsigned notice under Section 148. ITAT held that an unsigned notice confers no jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
The ITAT held that an unsigned and unexecuted seized agreement cannot establish receipt of cash. The key takeaway is that additions under Section 69A require proof of actual receipt, not mere allegations.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
Delhi High Court held that the Initiating Officer has given reasons to believe as to how petitioner is a Benamidar. Further, writ is not admitted as petitioner has an efficacious remedy before Adjudicating Officer under Section 26 of the Benami Act.
