The Tribunal held that loans received from NBFCs cannot be treated as unexplained where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are established. Absence of incriminating material led to deletion of additions.
The issue involved additions based on mismatch between property registration and payment dates. The Tribunal held that delayed encashment of cheques does not indicate unexplained investment. It concluded that the additions lacked factual basis and directed deletion.
The ruling emphasizes that once the Transfer Pricing Officer accepts the arm’s length nature of a transaction, the Assessing Officer cannot question its reasonableness. The disallowance was deleted as the interest rate complied with transfer pricing norms and reflected commercial reality.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹8.44 crore was unsustainable as it was based on incorrect assumptions about multiple bank accounts. It ruled that properly recorded and explained transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
The case examined whether failure to consider a binding tribunal precedent constitutes an error. The ITAT held that such non-consideration is a mistake apparent on record and recalled the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that cash deposits were supported by disclosed sale consideration and documentary evidence. It held that unverified objections could not override confirmed transactions.
The case examined whether scrutiny selection without meeting CBDT conditions was valid. The ITAT held that failure to satisfy mandatory criteria invalidated the notice and entire assessment.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The issue involved denial of exemption for failure to attach audited accounts with Form 10B. The Tribunal held such lapse to be procedural and directed reconsideration, emphasizing that substantive compliance cannot be denied for technical defects.
The Tribunal held that absence of commenced activities is not a valid ground to deny registration where objects are charitable and proposed activities align with them.
