The case involved additions made solely on an Excel sheet and a third-party statement alleging cash payments. The Tribunal ruled that such unverified material, without independent evidence, cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether penalty applies when a bogus donation claim is withdrawn after detection. The Tribunal held that post-detection withdrawal is not voluntary, and penalty for misreporting was rightly imposed.
The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether reassessment can survive when no addition is made on the stated reasons for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reassessment is invalid, and the AO cannot make unrelated additions.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 54F can be raised during reassessment if it relates to the income under scrutiny. The case clarifies that reassessment scope includes such connected claims.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, GST records, and banking transactions cannot be treated as bogus. It ruled that documentary evidence outweighed doubts raised by the department.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of labour expenses without concrete evidence is unsustainable. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot justify additions when proper documentation exists.
