The approving authority issued one common approval for multiple years without demonstrating examination of records. The Tribunal ruled such ritualistic approval vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an uncorroborated statement recorded from another person. In absence of independent evidence, the ₹1.80 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that purchases from a foreign supplier were genuine as goods were imported through customs and duly recorded in books. It upheld deletion of addition under Section 68 on this ground.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under Section 148 issued before obtaining mandatory approval under Section 151 is invalid. Since sanction was granted after issuance of notice, the reassessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdictional validity of reassessment based on new information. However, the addition was restored to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 250(6).
The Tribunal ruled that failure to examine whether payees discharged tax liability vitiates proceedings under Section 201. The case was sent back to the AO to verify compliance and re-decide the issue.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts received were repayments of past advances and could not be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the current year. Additions were deleted as they did not pertain to fresh transactions.
While noting deficiencies in supporting evidence, the ITAT found that entire addition of ₹50.90 lakh was not sustainable. The addition was restricted to 10% of purchases due to absence of book rejection.
ITAT ruled that reliance on statements without offering cross-examination and without supporting evidence violates principles of natural justice. Additions under Sections 69A and 153C were set aside.
The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
