The Tribunal held that past years consistently allowed ESOP expenditure as revenue, and no new facts justified deviation. once an issue is settled for identical facts, consistency must be maintained.
The ruling emphasized that transfer requires full payment and handover of possession, which were absent during AY 2015-16. The Tribunal deleted the addition and held that taxing the income again would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee provided prima facie evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to make independent inquiries. Non-compliance renders additions invalid.
ITAT Surat relied on precedents (Hari Gopal, Marksans Pharma, Boparai P. Ltd.) to hold that ad-hoc or percentage-based additions do not trigger Section 271(1)(c) penalty. Appeal allowed, penalty deleted.
The ITAT Pune remanded a case where the first appellate authority dismissed an appeal ex-parte. taxpayers must be given a fair hearing before dismissal, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
CIT(A) set aside penalties imposed for violations of Sections 269SS and 269T, as they were issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The ruling reaffirms that late penalty orders are invalid even if violations occurred.
Appeal delayed by 252 days due to counsel’s oversight was condoned by ITAT citing reasonable diligence. Tribunal then reduced unexplained cash addition under Section 69A to ₹1.8 lakh using a fair estimation method.
The ITAT dismissed Revenue’s Section 68 additions, holding that the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of lenders. AO’s reliance solely on search statements was rejected.
The ITAT deleted Rs. 59.39 lakh added under Section 69A, holding that the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained via cash books and bank statements. The ruling reinforces that documented withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained income without contrary evidence.
The Court held that once evidence under Section 145 NI Act has commenced, returning the complaint solely due to the 2015 jurisdictional amendment is improper. It restored the case to the Kolkata court, emphasizing continuity of proceedings and preventing prejudice to either party.
