Reopening notice under Section 148 was held invalid as the AO ignored co-purchasers’ contributions and granted mechanical approval under Section 151 without application of mind. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment and associated additions null and void.
Tribunal emphasized that unilateral claims for commission and interest from CPRPL are insufficient to attract tax. Taxable income arises only when amounts are truly payable or received.
The Tribunal held that a cash ledger found during a third-party search could not trigger Section 153C when the assessee’s name was absent. It ruled that additions fail without a direct link to the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur dismissed the appeal as time-barred since it was filed 317 days late. The affidavit filed lacked sufficient cause, proper verification, and supporting evidence, leading to rejection of the condonation application.
ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the AO has already examined the issues and applied his mind. Key takeaway: Mere preference for deeper enquiry does not make an assessment erroneous.
The Tribunal held that deposits in the assessee’s bank account represented genuine receivables from a previously acknowledged liquor business. Since the source was documented and undisputed, the Sec.69A addition of Rs.12.21 lakhs was deleted.
The Tribunal held that severance pay received on cessation of employment is taxable as “profits in lieu of salary” under Sec.17(3)(iii). Voluntariness or nomenclature of the payment is irrelevant post-2002 statutory amendment.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a large cash-credit addition after the AO confirmed in remand that branch sales and cash transfers were genuine. The key takeaway is that once sales are accepted, related cash deposits cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal confirmed that unsecured loans of ₹1.77 crore were genuine, supported by account-payee cheques, NBFC registration, bank statements, and confirmations. AO’s additions were based on presumption and ignored documentary evidence, so the deletions were rightly upheld.
The Tribunal held that once the Final Assessment Order under Section 147/144C(3) is passed, the DRP has no jurisdiction to consider belated objections. Consequently, appeals against DRP directions in such cases are not maintainable.
