ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 147 is valid even if based on an old PAN, as banking and TDS records may reflect its continued use. Ex parte assessment was remanded for proper reconciliation.
The Supreme Court held that revision under Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue. In this case, depreciation claimed by a loss-making entity was tax-neutral, so revision was invalid.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that counter claims cannot be filed against co-defendants under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. The ruling dismisses a misconceived and time-barred claim, restoring procedural discipline.
The Court held that failure to pay rent after fair rent fixation, without obtaining a stay, amounts to wilful default and justifies eviction under the Rent Control Act.
The ITAT Chennai held that rejecting agricultural income solely for lack of receipts is unjustified when similar income was accepted in earlier and later years.
ITAT Mumbai held that doubting goods transportation alone cannot justify full disallowance, restricting the addition to 11.54% GP on ₹32.75 lakh purchases.
ITAT Delhi invalidated a reassessment under Sections 144/147, citing mechanical approval by authorities and incorrect statutory references. The ruling reinforces that higher authorities must apply proper legal mind when granting sanction under Section 151.
