The Tribunal held that an order rejecting condonation under Section 119(2)(b) cannot be appealed under Section 253(1). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, reaffirming limits on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that purchase from a State Government entity cannot be undervalued, deleting Rs. 6.59 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of alleged on-money additions, holding that similar additions had already been overturned in HBPL’s case. The ruling confirms that the AO’s reliance on earlier search findings could not justify the addition.
ITAT Delhi remands an ex-parte CIT(A)/NFAC order for fresh adjudication, citing potential communication gaps in the faceless hearing regime.
ITAT Chandigarh held that Rs. 12 lakh cash deposits during demonetization, received from members of a cooperative society, cannot be treated as unexplained income. The appeal was partly allowed, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal rejected the appeal as the tax effect was below the ₹60 lakh threshold set by CBDT. The legal issue was kept open, with liberty to recall if an exception applies.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that the CIT(A) is empowered to set aside and remand assessments made under Section 144 to the AO under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting AO’s additions on depreciation, excess stock, and gross profit, confirming machinery was in use and books were reliable.
The Tribunal permitted withdrawal after the appellant cited an inadvertent error and confirmed that a fresh appeal was already pending. The case was dismissed as withdrawn.
