The tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of a statement recorded from an employee during survey proceedings are unsustainable in law. Statements by non-assessees cannot justify undisclosed income additions without independent corroboration.
ITAT Mumbai held that protective additions under Sections 68 and 69C cannot survive once substantive additions are confirmed in the hands of beneficiaries. The ruling prevents double taxation of the same income and limits misuse of protective assessments.
Delhi High Court held that there cannot be indefinite pretrial detention when the existence of proceeds of crime itself is seriously in doubt. Accordingly, continued detention is not warranted hence bail application allowed and regular bail granted.
The Tribunal held that when no other income source exists, bank deposits linked to business cannot be taxed separately. Estimation must reflect commercial realities of the trade.
The case involved rejection of cash deposits due to alleged improbability of holding cash. The Tribunal ruled that presumptions cannot override a registered sale deed and disclosed capital gains.
The Tribunal emphasized that registration decisions must consider all relevant evidence. Mechanical rejection without full appraisal was held unsustainable.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
he Tribunal held that unsecured loans could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were duly proved. Consistency with earlier rulings involving the same lenders led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies automatically when stamp value exceeds purchase price. However, it remanded the matter for DVO valuation to ensure fair determination of market value.
The dispute concerned enhancement of house property income based on an unsigned lease found during search. The Tribunal held that such a document has no evidentiary value and cannot support additions.
