The Tribunal held that lack of inquiry into a large receipt justified revision under Section 263. It found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The ruling reinforces duty of proper verification.
The Tribunal set aside orders where the assessee failed to appear and granted another opportunity. It emphasized adherence to natural justice while imposing a cost.
The Tribunal deleted purchase disallowances after noting invoices, transport records, weighbridge slips, tax returns and bank payments supported actual procurement and use of materials in infrastructure projects.
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.
