The ITAT held that jewellery tag prices in internal software cannot be equated with realised sales, deleting GP additions made without evidence of suppression.
ITAT held that entire cash deposits of a business correspondent cannot be treated as unexplained income without verification. The AO must examine whether deposits were bank collections or the assessee’s own money.
Tribunal held that income cannot be added merely because it appears in Form 26AS and remanded matter to verify whether assessee actually received amounts corresponding to TDS credits.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment for AY 2008-09 after the AO failed to issue a mandatory draft order under section 144C during remand proceedings, highlighting procedural compliance in transfer pricing cases.
The ITAT ruled that an addition under section 68 cannot be sustained solely on a retracted statement of a third party, deleting ₹81 lakh share capital added to income.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
ITAT held that failure to claim TDS credit in the return is only a procedural lapse. Once TDS is reflected in Form 26AS, credit must be granted after verifying corresponding income.
Delhi ITAT quashed ex-parte assessments under Sections 144/147/143(3) as the authorised signatory’s serious illness prevented contesting, ensuring a fair opportunity to present evidence.
ITAT Delhi dismissed an appeal where the assessee continuously absented itself, upholding additions under Section 143(3). The case reinforces that tax law protects diligent litigants, not those neglecting their rights.
Delhi ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) after finding that additional evidence was accepted without allowing AO to respond. Procedural safeguards under Rule 46A are essential, even for official records.
