Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, solely on the basis of information received, without application of mind is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that ad hoc disallowance of commission expense cannot be sustained since assessee has substantiated commission payment with relevant evidence. Further, mere non-submission of certain bills and vouchers cannot be reason for ad hoc disallowance of land and development expenditure.
The ITAT quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, observing that the foundational notice was issued after the permissible date. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines under TOLA cannot be extended retroactively. Subsequent orders based on the invalid notice were held without jurisdiction.
The AO’s assessment included detailed examination of depreciation, warranty provisions, and Section 80G deductions for CSR donations. ITAT Ahmedabad found that the AO’s conclusions were plausible and in line with judicial precedents. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, affirming that the AO’s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere delay in filing the return of income cannot be construed as a violation so grave as to justify cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(4). Delay in return was unintentional hence cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA not justified.
Tribunal held that AO did not establish any defect in identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of share subscribers. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to examine inventory-related documents before sustaining disallowance under section 37(1). The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition towards unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act upheld since assessee company failed to substantiate identity and creditworthiness of lender.
