The Tribunal held that mere transfer of funds to a state undertaking does not shift statutory TDS liability. Without proof of lawful discharge of TDS, penalty was sustained
The Tribunal held that denial of India–USA DTAA rates during processing under Section 143(1) was unjustified. It observed that Form 10F facilitates verification and does not create the right, making delayed compliance curable.
ITAT clarified that a statement recorded during search does not automatically become incriminating material. Without supporting documentary evidence, additions under Section 69A cannot survive.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
While condoning procedural delay, the Tribunal emphasized fairness and allowed substantial relief in a capital gains computation dispute. It directed recalculation of indexed cost after permitting 80% of claimed improvement expenses.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed and books of account remain intact, purchase additions require stronger evidence. In the absence of contrary material, the ₹35.48 lakh disallowance was deleted.
Although stamp law generally places registration costs on buyers, the Tribunal held that parties may contract otherwise. Since the sale deed clearly assigned the burden to the seller, the ₹5.47 lakh disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal reversed additions made towards alleged suppressed rent and bogus salary expenses. It emphasized factual consistency, business necessity, and absence of tax avoidance in granting relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when the bank account is recorded in audited books and disclosed in the ITR. In absence of contrary evidence, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
