The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether approval under Section 151 granted without reasons is valid. The Tribunal held mechanical approval invalid, rendering the reassessment void and unsustainable.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The issue involved addition made without providing a hearing. The Tribunal held that once such action is invalid, further directions cannot be issued. The takeaway is that procedural violation nullifies subsequent directions.
ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The issue was whether repayment of loans through banking channels proves genuineness under Section 68. ITAT Delhi held it does not, ruling that bogus loans remain unexplained even if repaid.
The case involved exemption claim on maturity of an assigned Keyman Insurance Policy. The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 10(10D) includes assigned policies and applies retrospectively. It ruled that such receipts remain taxable despite assignment.
The Tribunal held that change in accounting method causing timing difference cannot lead to double taxation. Since prior period adjustment was allowed and no revenue loss occurred, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that reopening of assessment was invalid due to invocation of the wrong Explanation under Section 147 despite a completed assessment under Section 143(3).
