The Tribunal held that Section 69 additions based solely on pen-drive data and an employee’s statement from a third-party search could not be sustained. No corroboration or confrontation to the assessee was provided. The ruling confirms that unsupported electronic data cannot create taxable on-money additions.
The Tribunal held that conflicting judicial views on Section 10(38) exemption made the issue debatable. Since the assessee disclosed all facts, penalty for concealment could not survive despite later denial of exemption.
The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified management and correct taxation at the consortium level.
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to AO, allowing the assessee to submit evidence on share and agricultural status of land to correctly determine capital gains.
The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embedded profit is taxable, leading to restriction of addition to 5% of turnover.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
RBI introduces a uniform framework governing interest rates, premature withdrawal penalties, and deposit treatment to ensure fairness and transparency across Local Area Banks.
The Tribunal ruled that the entity did not qualify as an educational institution or as substantially government-financed, leading to denial of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption. The dispute over taxing gross receipts was remanded for a fresh decision. Key takeaway: fund management alone cannot justify exemption.
