The Revenue alleged unexplained cash credits despite documentary evidence. The Tribunal ruled that once loans are repaid with interest and TDS, Section 68 cannot be invoked in isolation.
Cash deposits were added as unexplained money due to alleged lack of proof. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible and documented source cannot be rejected without contrary evidence.
The case examined whether other additions can be made when the reopening issue is not sustained. The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot be used as a roving enquiry.
Registration was denied as activities allegedly exceeded declared aims. The Tribunal held that pending amendment justified remand for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
The tax authorities made an addition without examining the lenders bank records. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify fund availability and absence of cash deposits.
The AO treated loans as unexplained due to incomplete confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed deletion after remand proceedings verified lenders’ identity, capacity, and transaction genuineness.
A Section 57(iii) interest claim was rejected solely due to the loan’s classification as a home loan. The tribunal held that if allowed earlier, the same view must prevail unless facts change.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be termed erroneous when the same income has already been assessed substantively in another case. The twin conditions of error and prejudice under section 263 were not satisfied.
