The Tribunal allowed withdrawal after noting that the case was already remanded under section 251(1)(a). The once a matter is reopened before the AO, the assessee may abandon the pending appeal.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
The Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 issued beyond the surviving period under TOLA are invalid, leading to quashing of assessment orders. Time-bar limits override procedural provisions.
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for re-examination of a section 36(1)(va) addition due to inadvertent error in the original audit report. The matter was restored to the AO to pass a speaking order. This highlights the importance of rectifying audit errors to prevent wrongful income additions.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Rs. 17.93 crore disallowance since the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. It applied binding High Court rulings holding that Section 14A cannot operate without exempt income. The decision confirms that the 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
ITAT held that cash deposits made during demonetization without proof of source justified addition under Section 69A. The ruling reinforces that dissolved entities must substantiate cash claims with evidence.
The Tribunal held that suspicion or reference to unconnected investigations cannot justify denying legitimate interest expenditure. It reiterated that opening balances accepted in earlier years cannot be treated as non-genuine in a subsequent year without contrary evidence.
The ITAT held that an assessee’s procedural lapses cannot override statutory entitlement to deductions under section 10A. The AO must verify substantive conditions, including STPI registration and export realization, before rejecting a claim.
