The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹8.44 crore was unsustainable as it was based on incorrect assumptions about multiple bank accounts. It ruled that properly recorded and explained transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, GST records, and banking transactions cannot be treated as bogus. It ruled that documentary evidence outweighed doubts raised by the department.
The Tribunal examined whether VRS compensation could be restricted under section 10(10B). It held that the scheme was effectively retrenchment, allowing full exemption and deleting the addition.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld penalty under Section 271C as exemption under Section 10(5) applies only to travel within India, requiring TDS on foreign travel reimbursements.
The Tribunal held that failure to electronically file Form 10 as required under Section 11(2) can lead to denial of income accumulation benefits. The case was remanded to allow the assessee to seek condonation under CBDT guidelines.
ITAT ruled that denial of TDS credit due to a PAN mismatch between the deceased and the legal heir is unjustified. Once the income is taxed in the hands of the legal heir, the corresponding TDS credit must also be granted.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
The Tribunal held that where accounts are mandatorily auditable under another law, the extended deadline applies and deduction cannot be denied as time-barred.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a 30% ad hoc disallowance, holding that expenses cannot be rejected without identifying concrete defects or conducting proper verification.
