The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The Tribunal examined whether provision for salary arrears arising from the Sixth Pay Commission was contingent or accrued. It held that the liability had accrued for services rendered and was allowable as an ascertained liability.
The Tribunal ruled that VAT collected but not credited to the profit and loss account cannot be treated as taxable income. Once substantially paid to the government, such liability cannot be added again as trading receipts.
The issue was whether reassessment remains valid when no Section 143(2) notice is issued after a return is filed in response to Section 148. ITAT held such reassessment void, confirming that Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal held that when the Assessing Officer disagrees with FMV supported by a registered valuer, a reference to the DVO is mandatory. Reliance solely on stamp duty rates was found improper, and the matter was remanded for fresh valuation.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation was fully explainable from business receipts. ITAT held that explanations were partly unreliable and sustained 50% of the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessments based on survey and requisition material are invalid when such material is not furnished to the assessee. All quantum additions were remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether a deductor can be treated as in default for non-deposit of TDS when the payee has already paid tax on the income. ITAT held that no demand under Section 201(1) survives once the payee’s tax payment is established.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained merely on investigation wing inputs. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved with documents, additions under Section 68 cannot survive.
