The issue centered on employees’ PF contributions and statutory due dates post-Checkmate ruling. The ITAT held that detailed verification was still required, warranting remand.
The issue was whether a notice dated 31-03-2021 but digitally signed on 01-04-2021 was valid. The ITAT held the notice was issued under the new regime without following section 148A, rendering reassessment void.
The AO added ₹1 crore based on alleged cash receipts from third-party material. The Tribunal held the reopening itself was invalid, so the addition could not survive.
The AO issued reassessment notices during the post-Ashish Agrawal transition phase. Applying later Supreme Court law, the ITAT held AY 2015-16 is beyond the permissible reopening period.
The AO questioned genuineness and love and affection behind the gift. The ITAT held that once relationship and capacity are proved through documents, no addition can survive.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
No incriminating material showed payment over the registered consideration. The tribunal held that without independent evidence, the ₹1.52 Cr addition could not be sustained.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked despite detailed verification of unsecured loans during scrutiny. The ITAT held that once enquiries are duly conducted, section 263 cannot be used for a deeper re-probe.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
