Income Tax : Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing...
Income Tax : The tribunal considered whether inconsistent explanations alone justify treating cash deposits as unexplained income. It held that...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether the reasons given for late filing of the appeal were sufficient. It ruled that routine administrativ...
Income Tax : The tribunal considered whether CPC could rely solely on the original tax audit report to make an adjustment. It held that correct...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C after finding that the assessee received and repaid loans through banking c...
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
The tribunal considered whether inconsistent explanations alone justify treating cash deposits as unexplained income. It held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and additions require proper investigation.
The tribunal examined whether the reasons given for late filing of the appeal were sufficient. It ruled that routine administrative workload and grievance handling cannot explain a substantial delay.
The tribunal considered whether CPC could rely solely on the original tax audit report to make an adjustment. It held that corrections through revised reports and financial records must be examined before sustaining an addition.
ITAT Delhi deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C after finding that the assessee received and repaid loans through banking channels with supporting confirmations and evidence.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notice under Section 148 is issued in the name of a company that had already converted into an LLP. The Tribunal ruled that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void in law.
The Tribunal ruled that unverified KOT data and handwritten loose sheets are insufficient to establish unaccounted sales. Additions based on assumptions and unsupported survey statements were deleted.
