ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cash resources to meet the impugned credit card payments. Since the authorities did not establish utilisation of cash elsewhere, the addition was deleted.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the assessee could not establish the authenticity of the purchase transactions underlying the LTCG claim. The inability to satisfactorily explain the acquisition of shares led to denial of exemption under Section 10(38) and confirmation of the addition under Section 68.
ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received on termination of employment due to retrenchment was a capital receipt. The Tribunal ruled that no part of the compensation was taxable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received under the HMT Tractor Division closure package qualified for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal treated the payment as closure-related compensation rather than ordinary voluntary retirement compensation.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer relied on factually incorrect assumptions regarding the filing of return and property purchase. The reopening was therefore quashed as unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts regarding the return filing date and declared income. The Tribunal ruled that such defective reasons could not support a valid belief of escaped income.
The assessee challenged the reduction of leave encashment exemption through a rectification order. The ITAT ruled that the absence of an opportunity of hearing necessitated fresh proceedings.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted an addition made under Section 69 after finding that the Assessing Officer relied only on an Excel sheet entry without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that suspicion alone cannot justify an addition.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
