The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are supported by available stock and recorded books, cash receipts from such sales cannot be added under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that amendments to Section 11 cannot retrospectively curtail the utilization window for earlier accumulations. Existing accumulations remain governed by the law in force at the time they were made.
The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance where interest-free funds were higher than tax-free investments. It reaffirmed that no interest disallowance arises in such circumstances.
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.
