ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine bank statements and supporting documents explaining cash deposits. The issue was restored for fresh verification with due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of formal registers or third-party bills does not automatically make expenses bogus. Additions based purely on estimates, without proof of inflation, are arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based solely on third-party statements are invalid when cross-examination is denied. Reliance on investigation reports without independent inquiry violates principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether Section 263 could be invoked despite adequate verification by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible, evidence-based view cannot be revised merely due to a differing opinion.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that expenses covered by a binding APA cannot be revisited under section 37 on a “need or benefit” test. Reopening settled transfer pricing issues would defeat the statutory purpose of APA.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal clarified that revisionary jurisdiction presupposes a valid assessment order. Where Section 153C itself is time-barred, Section 263 has no application.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid since the section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16, making it barred by limitation under settled Supreme Court law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee given to Associate Enterprise is not sustainable based on settled orders of Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a search assessment completed under Section 153C with proper approval under Section 153D. Unless such approval is shown to be erroneous, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
