The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld that the assessee could adopt NAV for one sale and DCF for another, as both are recognized under Rule 11UA. Since the AO failed to show any defect in the valuation reports, the substituted FMV was held invalid. The deletion of the section 50CA addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is eligible for entire credit of foreign taxes, even if the taxability was nil consequent to the deduction on account of business losses or section 10A exemption. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Delhi applied the principle that if the foundation (quantum addition) is removed, the superstructure (penalty) collapses. The Section 270A penalty was deleted once the quantum was wiped out. Takeaway: penalties require surviving taxable additions.
ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties under section 271DA cannot be levied without the AO recording satisfaction in the assessment order, following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
Reassessment proceedings initiated with approval from the wrong authority were held invalid. Courts reiterated that Section 151(ii) specifies the competent sanctioning authority for notices issued after three years, leading to quashing of the assessment and related demand.
ITAT held that although the assessee attempted to justify cash deposits as scrap sales, lack of key supporting records justified only a partial lump-sum addition. Key takeaway: Section 68 additions must be proportionate to actual evidentiary gaps.
