The appeals were dismissed solely due to delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that substantive justice requires condonation, though costs may be imposed for repeated defaults.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal condoned an 893-day delay citing genuine medical reasons and decided the appeal on merits. It held that cash deposits arising from business receipts cannot be split arbitrarily and must be assessed through reasonable profit estimation.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal condoned a 458-day delay after an appeal order was sent to the wrong counsel. The case was remanded for fresh hearing to ensure the assessee’s full opportunity to present evidence in a demonetisation cash-deposit matter.
The ITAT Amritsar held that a reassessment under Section 147 was void as the Section 148 notice was issued without complying with procedural requirements and statutory service obligations.
The ITAT Amritsar remanded the 12A registration application after the CIT(E) ignored documentary proof of charitable activities. The trust must now be reconsidered with full verification of invoices, bank statements, and photographs.
Tribunal dismisses AO’s addition after assessing evidence, books of accounts, VAT returns, and confirmed ledgers, confirming the transactions’ authenticity.
The Tribunal allowed stay of recovery after directing a jewellery firm to pay ₹10 lakh and furnish a ₹10 lakh bank guarantee, holding 20% payment mandatory under section 254(2A).
