ITAT Bangalore remanded ₹49.43 lakh sundry creditor addition and ₹3.74 lakh TDS disallowance, holding that lack of proper evidence analysis and factual verification violated natural justice, requiring fresh adjudication by AO.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be imposed when notices were sent to an inaccessible hacked email. It accepted that delayed compliance had a reasonable cause. The ruling emphasizes fairness in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to specify a clear purpose in Form 10 invalidates accumulation claims under Section 11(2). However, it allowed reconsideration to verify actual utilization. The ruling highlights the need for precise disclosures.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules like Form 67 filing timelines are not meant to deny legitimate FTC. It directed the AO to grant credit after verifying evidence. The case highlights the primacy of DTAA provisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling clarifies that such action exceeds jurisdiction under Section 251 and must be addressed through other provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that holding investments capable of generating exempt income does not trigger Section 14A. Without actual exempt income, no disallowance can be made. This decision curbs automatic application of Rule 8D.
The issue was whether a writ petition for FIR quashing becomes infructuous after filing of a chargesheet. The Court held it does not, where broader jurisdiction under BNSS is invoked.
ITAT Bangalore quashed Section 263 revision, holding that AOs acceptance of FMV based on valuers report was a plausible view after enquiry and non-reference to DVO or non-initiation of penalty cannot render the order erroneous or prejudicial.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without examining detailed reconciliation and evidence. It remanded the case for fresh verification, emphasizing proper factual analysis.
The Tribunal held that strict correlation between withdrawals and deposits is not required under Section 69. It ruled that reasonable cash availability and explanation based on probabilities is sufficient.
