The Tribunal permitted withdrawal after the appellant cited an inadvertent error and confirmed that a fresh appeal was already pending. The case was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the AO after directing the assessee to deposit ₹5,000 as costs.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts paid directly to a confirming party did not accrue to the seller and could not be treated as capital gains. The Section 263 revision was invalidated because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that both assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte. The case was returned to the AO with directions to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal ruled that an addition of Rs. 25 lakh was unjustified as the genuineness of a cash deposit from agricultural land sale was established, despite minor errors in affidavit.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is taxable under ‘Income from Other Sources’ per Sections 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1). The case clarifies post-amendment tax treatment of such interest.
Chander Shekher Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts: The assessee, Shri Chander Shekher Saini, is a retired employee who served initially with the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and, pursuant to restructuring, with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), a company wholly owned by the Government of Punjab. It is not in dispute that the […]
