The Tribunal emphasized that assumptions based on common names cannot justify major tax additions. Without documentary linkage or banking trail confirmation, the Revenue’s case could not stand.
The case involved alleged bogus job-work transactions linked to a third party. The Tribunal found the receipts were genuine business income duly audited and taxed, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. Once adequate inquiry is conducted and a reasonable view is taken, revision is unsustainable.
ITAT held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when sales and stock are accepted. The addition was rightly restricted to 25% to cover possible inflation.
Once the Tribunal ruled that foreign salary was not taxable in India, consequential additions for alleged unexplained investments and deposits were also deleted. The appeal was allowed in full.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based merely on audit objection without independent application of mind is unsustainable. An audit note cannot replace the Assessing Officers reasoned belief.
The Tribunal emphasized that substantive justice prevails over technical PAN mismatch. Since income of the deceased was offered and accepted, TDS credit had to be allowed to the legal heir.
ITAT deleted the addition made under Section 153C as no incriminating material directly linked the buyer to alleged cash payments. Reliance solely on third-party pen drive data and statements was held insufficient.
The decision clarifies that the monetary threshold under Section 149 applies to actual taxable income, not purchase turnover. As the addition fell below ₹50 lakh, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that once the Assessing Officer scrutinized the Section 10AA claim and R&D allocation, revision cannot be invoked. Section 263 cannot be used to re-examine issues already verified during assessment.
