The Tribunal held that mere possession of cash during seizure does not establish ownership for section 69A. Where the source is explained and ownership lies elsewhere, addition in the carrier’s hands is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when seized search material exists. The correct and exclusive route is section 153C, making the reopening jurisdictionally invalid.
The Tribunal held that delays caused by internal approvals from senior officials cannot justify late filing. Lack of due diligence by officials led to outright dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that taxing entire bank cash deposits under section 69A without examining business explanations is unsustainable. The reassessment was restored for de-novo adjudication with conditions.
The Tribunal noted that Form 26AS discrepancies were caused by contracts and TDS continuing in the proprietor’s PAN after business conversion. Since reconciliation was not properly examined, the issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that invoking Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee’s own disallowance violates section 14A(2). Mechanical application of Rule 8D renders the disallowance legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal clarified that section 80G(2) applies to donor deductions, not trust registration. Since conditions under section 80G(5) were fulfilled, registration was directed to be granted.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing only three hearing notices does not satisfy principles of natural justice. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under section 153C cannot go beyond the material specified in the satisfaction note. Since additions were based on different material, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that after the High Court invalidated section 153C proceedings, all subsequent tax adjustments including those involving ₹6.68 crore are unsustainable. Judicial finality bars further action.
