The Tribunal ruled that TDS credit can be granted even if not fully reflected in Form 26AS, subject to verification. The deductee should not be penalized for the deductor’s failure to deposit tax.
With the Section 50C addition and 54F disallowance deleted, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. It emphasized that penalty cannot stand when the underlying additions are removed.
ITAT ruled that revisionary powers cannot be invoked on vague suspicion. Where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are documented and examined, Section 263 cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment completed after the taxpayer s death without issuing notice to legal heirs is void ab initio. Legal heirs are not obligated to inform the Revenue about the death.
The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits would result in double taxation. The entire ₹4.74 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that Goetze (India) does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. Where all facts are on record, the claim must be examined on merits.
ITAT held that quasi-judicial assessments must be based on facts, not conjecture. Estimation of expenses is impermissible where no defect in vouchers or accounts is established.
The Tribunal held that after expiry of three years, sanction must be obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). Since approval was taken from PCIT instead of PCCIT, the reopening was invalid.
Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal ruled that additions sustained purely on profit estimation cannot trigger penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Clear evidence of concealment is mandatory for penalty.
The Court held that acknowledgment of debt in signed balance sheets validly extends limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the Section 7 application was filed within the extended period, CIRP was rightly admitted.
