The ITAT remitted the case for fresh assessment after the assessee challenged unexplained cash additions, highlighting the need for proper documentation and adherence to natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal without granting reasonable opportunity violates natural justice and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 148 notice issued after six years from AY 2013–14 was invalid, quashing the reassessment and additions under Section 54F.
Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for delay and held that denial of opportunity justified remand for fresh assessment under Section 147/144B.
Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence without AO’s opportunity and remanded the case for re-examination of NRE deposit sources under Section 69.
Tribunal held that a minor delay should not defeat justice and directed CIT(A) to hear the case on merits, citing violation of Section 250(6).
Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54 depends on amount actually invested in a new property and not on ownership proportion. Assessing Officer’s restriction to 50% due to joint ownership was set aside, confirming relief for assessee.
The Tribunal accepted medical reasons for delay, found notice service defective, and set aside a non-speaking CIT(A) order for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Tribunal ruled that disallowance for not filing Form 10 can only apply in the year of default, not later years of utilization. Addition of ₹80 lakh deleted.
