The Tribunal observed that official salary documents issued by the employer and Income Tax Department showed salary income of only ₹4.67 lakh. The incorrect figure in the return was therefore held to be a typographical mistake requiring rectification.
Mumbai ITAT restored appeals dismissed for 179-day delay after observing that the assessee had relied bona fide on his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal granted another opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.36 crore stock valuation addition to the AO after finding that the assessee’s Weighted Average Cost method under AS-2 and ICDS-II was never properly examined. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of inventory valuation records.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely by reviewing records already examined during original scrutiny. Absence of fresh tangible material made the reopening legally invalid.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify bank statements, credit card records, and company ledger accounts before making the addition under Section 68. The matter was restored for fresh examination and reconciliation of records.
The ITAT held that old unsecured loan balances carried forward from earlier years cannot automatically be treated as unexplained cash credits in a subsequent year.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued on 25.07.2022 were time-barred since the Revenue had only one surviving day left under the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal limitation formula.
The ITAT held that mere disclosure of undisclosed income during search is insufficient for immunity under Section 271AAA unless the assessee substantiates the manner in which such income was derived.
The ITAT held that CSR expenditure disallowed as business expenditure under Section 37(1) can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. Revision under Section 263 was accordingly quashed.
The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 or 69A. The Tribunal observed that mere electronic entries amount to dumb documents unless independently verified.
