ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest provision only increases business income, which remains eligible for Section 80P deduction. Hence, the addition was treated as tax-neutral and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that booking a flat in an under-construction project qualifies as construction. Since possession was obtained within three years, full deduction under section 54 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus based solely on investigation reports. In absence of independent inquiry or evidence, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the tax effect was below the CBDT’s prescribed limit. The case was not examined on merits due to non-maintainability.
The ruling rejected re-characterization of share transactions as loans in absence of exceptional circumstances. Interest imputation on such transactions was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order as the CIT(A) failed to examine judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding that an identical appeal had already been filed and heard. The case was treated as duplicate and not examined on merits.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
