The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
The issue was whether an ex-parte reassessment for unexplained cash deposits could stand despite total non-compliance. The ITAT held that substantive justice required one final opportunity and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after the High Court upheld that revision under Section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry.
ITAT held PCIT cannot revise assessment where penny stock LTCG transactions were fully examined and AO adopted a permissible view.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order taxing Rs. 10 lakh received from HUF, emphasizing verification of the gift and HUF status before determining taxability under section 56(2)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalised for mistakes of his CA and condoned a two-year delay. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment, reaffirming natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
