The Tribunal held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income and issue the refund due to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in sustaining the addition once the assessee substantiated the source of the cash deposited. The Tribunal accepted the documentary evidence and deleted the addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal ruled that ignoring the assessees additional evidence, including the registered valuers report, vitiated the appellate proceedings. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment in accordance with law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions solely on the ground of absence of incriminating material without examining the evidence on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee’s claims.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the disallowance of employees’ PF/ESI contributions deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts. Following binding Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that payment before filing the income tax return does not cure the delay, while remanding the Form 26AS mismatch issue for fresh verification.
Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition after finding no direct link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54B after the Assessing Officer, in a remand report, verified that the land was used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) could not disregard those findings without contrary evidence.
