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.
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).
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.
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
The Supreme Court held that revision under Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue. In this case, depreciation claimed by a loss-making entity was tax-neutral, so revision was invalid.
The ITAT Bangalore held that income from tissue culture and nursery operations forms part of agricultural income under Section 10(1) when integrated with land-based cultivation.
ITAT observed that applying an upper turnover filter is essential in transfer pricing cases where the assessee’s turnover is much lower. It ordered exclusion of big IT majors from the comparable list and directed fresh computation of ALP.
