The assessee explained cash deposits through corresponding withdrawals supported by books and bank records. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot exceed the amount certified by DSIR after the 2016 amendment, leading to disallowance of excess R&D claims.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as approval was taken from the wrong authority beyond three years. It ruled that such non-compliance with Section 151(ii) vitiates jurisdiction and renders the notice void.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that failure to issue a jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 invalidates the assessment. It ruled that absence of such order renders proceedings void ab initio, irrespective of merits.
The Tribunal held that lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for delay. The matter was restored for reconsideration on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that wage arrears arising from pay revision constitute an accrued liability from the effective date. The provision was allowed despite later payment and quantification.
The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)s decision to allow a new claim under Section 10A, noting that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and aimed at determining correct tax liability.
The Tribunal held that deduction cannot be rejected merely due to absence of supporting evidence without examining merits. It remanded the matter for fresh verification of the claim.
