ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition for alleged on-money as no direct evidence linked assessee. Pen drive data lacked Section 65B proof and cross-exam was denied, rendering addition unsustainable.
The authority ruled that panels with engineered edges and contours exceed the scope of sheets under Chapter Note 10. This led to their exclusion from Heading 3921 and classification under Heading 3925.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld relief where the assessee provided proof of agricultural activities and income. It rejected additions based solely on statements without investigation. The case underscores the importance of documentary support.
The Tribunal held that total investment in the new property must be considered for exemption, not just payments within one year. It allowed full capital gains exemption as conditions were substantially met.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The Tribunal noted that loans were part of regular business transactions with repayments in the same year. It held that such conduct strengthens the claim of genuineness. The case highlights the relevance of transaction pattern in tax scrutiny.
