The dispute centered on unexplained investment taxed in an incorrect year. The Tribunal ruled that such an addition is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The exemption was rejected only due to delayed electronic filing of Form 10. The Tribunal ruled that procedural delay cannot override substantive compliance made before assessment completion.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The dispute centered on whether appeals could be dismissed merely on filing a VSV application. The Tribunal ruled that rejection or non-approval of VSV keeps appeals alive.
The case involved alleged bogus purchases backed only by invoices and bank payments. The Tribunal held that without confirmations, transport evidence, or delivery proof, such purchases cannot be treated as genuine.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated while the time to file a belated return was still open. The Tribunal held such reopening premature and void, as income cannot be said to have escaped assessment.
The case involved a massive section 68 addition sustained solely due to non-admission of evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was initiated merely on Insight Portal data and third-party statements without verification or application of mind.
ITAT Mumbai (E Bench) in Estate of Vandravan P. Shah vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 5401, 5402 & 5403/Mum/2024; AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18; order dated 23.12.2025) has partly rejected the assessee’s jurisdictional challenge and upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of the deceased through legal representative u/s 159, while also sustaining the disallowance of deduction u/s 35AC on alleged bogus donation to Navjeevan Charitable Trust.
ITAT deleted additions as alleged cash jewellery purchases were based solely on third-party material without granting cross-examination or furnishing full evidence.
