While reopening of assessment was sustained due to bank deposit information, the cash addition was deleted on merits. Proper explanation of source defeats Section 69A.
The Tribunal reviewed an addition based on demonetisation-era cash deposits despite detailed hospital records being produced. It ruled that ignoring cash books and patient registers was unjustified.
It was ruled that money received from a parent through banking channels constitutes an explained source. The addition under Section 69A was deleted as the transaction was fully traceable.
The issue was whether a trader declaring income under Section 44AD could face additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding such additions contrary to law.
The Tribunal held that NFAC had no authority to pass reassessment orders before the faceless reassessment notification became operative. As a result, the entire assessment was quashed. The ruling highlights that participation by the assessee cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
It was ruled that interest for late filing of the original return can be computed based on tax determined in search-related assessment. Timely filing after notice does not negate earlier delay.
The issue was whether additional rental income could be treated as undisclosed. The Tribunal held that tenant confirmations and bank records proved the declared rent, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether an ex parte appellate order could stand without proper hearing. The Tribunal held that lack of opportunity vitiated the order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal examined whether execution of a development agreement alone triggers capital gains. It held that without consideration or statutory transfer of possession, no capital gains arise.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
