The Revenue alleged unexplained cash credits despite documentary evidence. The Tribunal ruled that once loans are repaid with interest and TDS, Section 68 cannot be invoked in isolation.
Cash deposits were added as unexplained money due to alleged lack of proof. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible and documented source cannot be rejected without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of rental receipts as income from house property because the companys principal object was not property letting. It ruled that business income treatment cannot be claimed merely based on incidental objects in the memorandum.
The Tribunal found that inadvertent allotment of two PANs led to duplication of bank accounts and misreporting of income. Proper reconciliation was directed before making any addition.
The case examined whether other additions can be made when the reopening issue is not sustained. The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot be used as a roving enquiry.
Registration was denied as activities allegedly exceeded declared aims. The Tribunal held that pending amendment justified remand for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that loans from salaried relatives with disclosed income and banking trails satisfy identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The Section 68 addition was therefore unsustainable.
The tax authorities made an addition without examining the lenders bank records. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify fund availability and absence of cash deposits.
The AO treated loans as unexplained due to incomplete confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed deletion after remand proceedings verified lenders’ identity, capacity, and transaction genuineness.
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
