The issue revolved around expansion of scrutiny from cash deposits to entire bank credits. The Tribunal ruled that such expansion without mandatory approval renders the assessment void and unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that bank deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when linked to regular business activity. It upheld that consistent past records supported the assessee’s claim of business receipts.
The issue was whether protective addition can survive when income is already taxed elsewhere. ITAT held that once income attains finality in another assessee’s case, protective addition cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether deduction under Section 80P is allowed when return is filed late. ITAT held that post-2018 amendment, deduction is barred if return is not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).
The issue was incorrect computation of interest without reducing foreign tax relief. ITAT held that relief under sections 90/90A must be deducted before calculating interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal held that unsigned excel sheets without supporting evidence cannot justify additions. It ruled that absence of corroboration and cross-examination renders such documents unreliable.
The Tribunal held that mere classification of shares as penny stock is insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. In absence of evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. It set aside the order and directed fresh assessment after proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that applications were rejected without adequate opportunity. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice.
