ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The Tribunal noted that loans were part of regular business transactions with repayments in the same year. It held that such conduct strengthens the claim of genuineness. The case highlights the relevance of transaction pattern in tax scrutiny.
The issue was whether entire purchases can be disallowed as bogus under Section 69C. The tribunal held that when sales are accepted, only the profit element (15%) can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical disallowances, and held CBDT instructions cannot override the Income-tax Act.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
ITAT held that absence of an irrevocability clause cannot justify rejection of 80G approval. The case was remanded to CIT(E) to reconsider in line with binding High Court ruling.
