ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the same is out of the cash sales and both cash book and books of account justifies the same. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Explains how ITAT Pune held that unsecured loans prior to 01.04.2023 do not require proving the lender’s source of funds, leading to deletion of a ₹1.62 crore addition.
Tribunal directs AO to apply the 30% tax rate on unexplained cash deposits during Nov–Dec 2016, citing Madras High Court ruling, partially allowing assessee’s appeal.
Tribunal quashed penalty where AO’s addition for alleged bogus purchases was purely estimated, emphasizing that penalties require concrete evidence of income concealment.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment notice issued three years after the relevant AY is invalid if the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, reinforcing the statutory threshold protection.
ITAT condoned delay as assessee learned of assessment only after bank account attachment, emphasizing the violation of natural justice. Key takeaway: Ex-parte orders require proper notice before dismissal.
The appeal was allowed as the notice under section 148 was sanctioned by an authority not competent under law. All proceedings following the invalid notice were held void-ab-initio. The ruling highlights the necessity of proper sanction for reopening assessments beyond three years.
The Tribunal allowed sales commission payments to family members engaged in company operations, deleting disallowances. The ruling emphasizes that commission need not be tied to individual sales but to services rendered. It sets a precedent for assessing commission to related parties in business operations.
Tribunal overruled CIT(A), following Madras High Court precedent, and treated proceeds from sale of Silver Oak trees as agricultural income. Human cultivation, not wild growth, defines agricultural income.
ITAT set aside dismissal due to delay, restoring appeal to ensure proper examination of disputed additions. Appellate authority must provide speaking orders considering all submissions.
