The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incriminating evidence, such addition is unsustainable, emphasizing the need for nexus.
The issue was whether reassessment is valid without proper service of notice. The Tribunal held that absence of valid service makes the entire reassessment void and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verification of conditions and allowed relief if eligibility is established.
The case examined whether a partnership can shield unlawful sub-letting. The Supreme Court held that where possession is effectively transferred to third parties, courts can lift the veil and treat it as sub-letting. The ruling reinforces that substance prevails over form in tenancy disputes.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel sheets are unsustainable without independent evidence. It emphasized that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.
ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack evidentiary value. Reopening based on unverified data and denial of cross-examination violates natural justice; entire additions quashed.
The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
The case addressed whether income can be corrected without filing a revised return. ITAT held that genuine computational errors can be rectified through revised computation during assessment. The ruling prioritizes accurate income over procedural technicalities.
