The Tribunal held that when interest-free funds exceed exempt-income investments, no interest disallowance under Section 14A can be made. The ruling reinforces the presumption laid down by the Supreme Court.
The issue was whether revision could stand on incorrect factual assumptions. ITAT held that misreading records makes the revision invalid, reaffirming that Section 263 needs real errors.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
The issue was whether an assessment can continue after the assessee’s death. The Tribunal held such an order void ab initio when the legal heir is not substituted.
The issue was whether old unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years. The tribunal upheld unlimited carry-forward post-2001 amendment, reaffirming that such depreciation can be set off without time restriction.
The issue was whether agricultural income was rightly disallowed for lack of proof. The tribunal deleted the addition after the Revenue’s own inspection confirmed active cultivation, reinforcing that verified facts override assumptions.
The tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income admitted during survey is duly declared in the return and accepted in assessment. The key takeaway is that absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars bars penalty, even if disclosure arose from a survey.
The ruling clarifies that specified sum under section 269SS refers to advances linked to property transfers. Cash received as final consideration at registration cannot trigger penalty under section 271D.
The Tribunal applied common sense to accept that some jewellery belonged to visiting relatives. It granted partial deletion, stressing that complete relief requires corroborative evidence.
The tribunal rejected demand raised solely due to Form 26AS mismatch caused by employer non-deposit of TDS. The key principle is that employees cannot be penalised for failures beyond their control.
