Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted statements and third-party Tally data without independent corroborative evidence.
The Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated excel-sheet entries and third-party statements. The Tribunal deleted the alleged on-money addition in the Rubberwala Group matter.
The Mumbai ITAT allowed deduction of professional fees paid for facilitating remittances relating to Iranian-origin imports affected by OFAC sanctions. The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Mumbai ITAT held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a deceased person are legally void once the department is informed about the death. Both the assessment and appellate orders were quashed as nullities.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority should have adopted a liberal approach while considering additional evidence crucial to adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate the exemption claim.
ITAT Mumbai observed that the charitable trust had filed its original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication of the exemption claim instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.
The assessee claimed that amounts deposited in bank accounts were retailer collections remitted to the telecom company and not commission income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct proper verification.
The Mumbai ITAT held that exemption under Section 54F has to be given effect before applying set-off provisions under Section 70(3). The assessee was allowed to carry forward long-term capital loss separately.
