The case examined whether delayed employee contributions could be disallowed under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held such adjustments invalid on debatable issues and ordered deletion of the addition.
The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceeded the permissible time period. It reinforces strict compliance with limitation provisions.
The case addressed whether entries in third-party seized documents can justify additions. The ITAT ruled they cannot without independent corroboration. It reinforces that suspicion alone cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal held that consolidated Excel entries showing aggregate cash sales were insufficient to establish receipt of ₹2 lakh or more in a single transaction, and penalty under Section 271DA could not be sustained.
The issue was whether delayed filing of return bars deduction under Section 10AA. ITAT held that timely filing was not mandatory for the relevant years and allowed the deduction.
The tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 bars foreign tax credit. It held that filing before completion of assessment is sufficient, allowing the credit.
Smt. Satyabhama Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad ITAT deleted the addition of ₹16.55 lakh u/s 69A, holding that cash found during search was duly explained by earlier accepted cash balance. The Tribunal also condoned a 97-day delay, adopting a liberal approach considering the assessee’s age, lack of digital access, and procedural difficulties. On merits, […]
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
