The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding that the assessee’s conditional withdrawal of reopening grounds was not properly considered. The matter was directed for fresh adjudication to address legal and factual issues.
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that once income is declared under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, individual cash deposits cannot be separately added. The sustained addition was set aside and deleted.
ITAT Indore held that in absence of evidence, expense on fuel cost occurred on deployment of JCB’s on rent needs to be ascertained by way of proper and detailed empirical analysis. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
The Tribunal held that where accounts are mandatorily auditable under another law, the extended deadline applies and deduction cannot be denied as time-barred.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a 30% ad hoc disallowance, holding that expenses cannot be rejected without identifying concrete defects or conducting proper verification.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(5) does not extend to foreign travel, following the binding Supreme Court decision. Consequently, non-deduction of TDS attracted penalty under Section 271C.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that share transactions relating to an earlier assessment year cannot be taxed in a subsequent year. Since the Revenue failed to link them to AY 2018-19, the addition was deleted.
