ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(5) does not extend to foreign travel, following the binding Supreme Court decision. Consequently, non-deduction of TDS attracted penalty under Section 271C.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) as it was based solely on digital data found from a third party. It reiterated that suspicion or extrapolation without direct evidence cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal held that mere transfer of funds to a state undertaking does not shift statutory TDS liability. Without proof of lawful discharge of TDS, penalty was sustained
The case involved additions for alleged suppressed sales and purchases based on seized digital material. The Tribunal ruled that once search material exists, the AO must invoke Section 148 with proper approval, making the 143(3) assessment legally unsustainable.
ITAT ruled that mere acceptance of exemption without examining statutory amendments constitutes non-application of mind. The Principal Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 where binding High Court rulings were ignored.
Registration was cancelled over doubts about a large NRI donation. The Tribunal held that receipt of donation alone does not constitute a specified violation without evidence of misuse or non-genuine activities.
Authorities applied a higher stamp value at registration to compute capital gains. The Tribunal corrected this by directing consideration of the stamp value on the agreement date, subject to verification.
The case examined rejection of books under Section 145(3) and estimation of profits in a cold storage business. While rejection was upheld, arbitrary enhancement of rates and quantities was struck down, resulting in partial relief.
The dispute centered on a statutory obligation to maintain books of account. The tribunal confirmed that non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 271A, which cannot be deleted without substantive rebuttal.
