The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE on alleged unexplained cash. The Tribunal held the provision to be prospective and barred its application for the year under appeal.
The appellate order was passed ex-parte under the faceless system. The Tribunal restored the appeal, directing the authority to grant three effective opportunities to the taxpayer.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal accepted possible redeposit of earlier withdrawals and restricted the addition to ₹2 lakh.
The Revenue taxed entire demonetisation cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that cash sales are possible in retail trade and restricted the addition to a 10% GP estimate.
The ITAT Delhi held that rental income already assessed in the hands of an HUF cannot be taxed again in the individual’s assessment. The addition was deleted to prevent double taxation of the same income.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that money received from a husband qualifies as an exempt gift from a relative under section 56. Such receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income in reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a bare endorsement like fit case does not amount to valid sanction. Absence of independent application of mind invalidates the entire reassessment.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute centered on unexplained investment taxed in an incorrect year. The Tribunal ruled that such an addition is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
