The Tribunal held that a cash ledger found during a third-party search could not trigger Section 153C when the assessee’s name was absent. It ruled that additions fail without a direct link to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a large cash-credit addition after the AO confirmed in remand that branch sales and cash transfers were genuine. The key takeaway is that once sales are accepted, related cash deposits cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
Delhi ITAT rules that reduction in percentage shareholding due to fresh share issuance is not a transfer under Income Tax law, providing relief to minority shareholders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings after noting the assessee produced no evidence to counter verified disallowances. Key takeaway: appellate relief requires substantiated rebuttal of factual verification.
The Tribunal removed the interest disallowance after holding that the assessee’s earlier favourable ruling covered the issue. Key takeaway: once a factual issue is already adjudicated in the assessee’s own case, consistency must be maintained.
The ITAT sent back the issue of carry-forward business losses for re-examination because assessment records did not clarify earlier allowances. Key takeaway: loss set-off must be verified year-by-year before denial.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the penalty appeal solely due to VSVS settlement of interest, without adjudicating the depreciation-related penalty. Key takeaway: all grounds must be decided on merits even when only part of the quantum is settled.
