The case addressed addition of a large gift treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter after admitting additional evidence showing the donor’s identity, relationship, and financial capacity.
The Tribunal examined whether the AO formed an independent belief before reopening. Finding verbatim reasons and rubber-stamp approval, it set aside the reassessment and consequential penalty.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The issue was whether section 68 additions could survive when loans were already repaid. The Tribunal held that once the assessee is no longer a beneficiary, such additions are unsustainable.
The Revenue relied on ITS data to allege unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled that where cash books and stock registers are maintained without defects, such additions are unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the extended period under TOLA were valid. The Tribunal held that post–Rajeev Bansal, notices beyond the surviving limitation are time-barred and void.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
