The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment could stand when based on information relating to another individual. It held that reopening was invalid due to absence of any tangible material against the assessee.
The dispute concerned denial of TDS credit solely due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive and factual deduction of tax overrides system mismatch.
Despite Form 10E being duly filed online, the claim under section 89(1) was rejected on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that such rigidity defeats justice and directed the AO to examine the claim afresh.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
The association’s surplus was not distributable to members and activities were non-profit. The ITAT ruled that these factors support charitable character and restored the case for re-evaluation.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE on alleged unexplained cash. The Tribunal held the provision to be prospective and barred its application for the year under appeal.
Demonetisation-era jewellery sales were questioned as invoices mentioned buyers only as cash. The ITAT remanded the matter to verify buyer identity, stock linkage, and genuineness before sustaining any addition.
