ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction linking seized material to the assessee’s income. Consequently, proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.
The ITAT ruled that dismissing an appeal solely for non-compliance is contrary to law. The appellate authority is obligated to frame issues and pass a reasoned order on each ground raised.
The AO compared per-location payments to different vendors to allege excessiveness. The Tribunal held that such comparisons lack statutory backing when parties are unrelated and services differ in nature and complexity.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The AO completed assessment under Section 144 after alleged non-compliance, but failed to prove valid service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that absence of jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings null.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
Registration was cancelled over doubts about a large NRI donation. The Tribunal held that receipt of donation alone does not constitute a specified violation without evidence of misuse or non-genuine activities.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years is impermissible where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Since the notice violated Section 151, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that since the assessment was legally correct when passed, invoking Section 154 after a later Supreme Court decision was impermissible. The addition was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal deleted ₹35.22 lakh added under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetisation. It held that audited books, recorded cash sales, and sufficient cash balance fully explained the deposits.
