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.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued without the correct statutory sanction under section 151(ii) are void ab initio, emphasizing that procedural compliance is crucial before examining merits of the case.
Tribunal held that AO had conducted detailed inquiries on a partner’s debit balance and correctly accepted it as capital withdrawal, not a loan. PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was based on assumptions and a change of opinion, not any factual error. The order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that a reopening made after three years is void when approval is granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/CCIT. The entire reassessment and related disallowance were struck down.
The Tribunal held that advances originating from bank cash-credit facilities secured by the shareholder’s personal assets are commercial transactions, not deemed dividend. The addition under section 2(22)(e) was therefore removed.
The Tribunal held that once sale proceeds are reduced from the asset block under section 43(6)(c), no separate tax can be levied on book profit. The addition was deleted to prevent double taxation.
