Tribunal held that addition for alleged accommodation entry could not stand where AO made no independent verification. Genuine sales, banking-channel receipts and tax records supported deletion.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
ITAT quashed reassessment notice issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO. Addition of ₹29.69 crore was invalidated, and Revenue’s appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that an order rejecting condonation under Section 119(2)(b) cannot be appealed under Section 253(1). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, reaffirming limits on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of alleged on-money additions, holding that similar additions had already been overturned in HBPL’s case. The ruling confirms that the AO’s reliance on earlier search findings could not justify the addition.
ITAT Chandigarh held that Rs. 12 lakh cash deposits during demonetization, received from members of a cooperative society, cannot be treated as unexplained income. The appeal was partly allowed, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal rejected the appeal as the tax effect was below the ₹60 lakh threshold set by CBDT. The legal issue was kept open, with liberty to recall if an exception applies.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that the CIT(A) is empowered to set aside and remand assessments made under Section 144 to the AO under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting AO’s additions on depreciation, excess stock, and gross profit, confirming machinery was in use and books were reliable.
