The ITAT allowed exemption of the entire leave encashment amount after noting that the revised ₹25 lakh ceiling exceeded the amount received on retirement. The appeal was allowed by applying the enhanced exemption limit.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the limited scrutiny mandate by examining a loan transaction unrelated to the selected issue of increase in capital. Since no approval for expanding scrutiny scope was obtained, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that taxpayers opting for presumptive taxation are not required to maintain books of account and therefore Section 68 could not be applied merely on the basis of bank statements.
Delhi ITAT held that issues relating to source of donations and cash deposits should generally be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section 12AB.
The ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The ITAT held that once profit is estimated on unaccounted sales, separate additions for wages and operational expenditure cannot be made again under section 69C. The ruling treated such additions as double taxation of the same income stream.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond six years under Section 153C are permissible only where escaped income represented in the form of assets exceeds or is likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakh. Since this statutory condition was not satisfied, the assessments were annulled as time-barred.
The ITAT held that cash deposited by a money transfer agent during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained income when the funds belonged to principal payment service providers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee merely acted as a collection agent and transferred the amounts to the principals.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer wrongly stated that the original return was never scrutinized. The Tribunal ruled that such factual errors while recording reasons showed complete non-application of mind.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond the prescribed period were invalid where alleged escaped income arose from unaccounted sales and not from assets. The Tribunal ruled that conditions under Sections 149 and 153A were not satisfied, leading to quashing of multiple reassessment notices.
