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.
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.
