ITAT held that share capital additions cannot rest on an inspector’s report not shared with the assessee. Matter remanded for fresh examination in line with natural justice.
ITAT held that Section 68 cannot be invoked where donors are identified with names, PAN, ITRs, and confirmations. Such donations cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits or anonymous income.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The Court held that interest under reverse charge cannot be recovered without prior adjudication. Coercive recovery was set aside as the liability was not an admitted tax.
The issue was a municipal demand raised without prior notice. The Court accepted the authority’s statement to treat it as a show cause notice and ensure a hearing before any final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
The Tribunal examined whether repayment of earlier loans could be taxed as unexplained money. It held that once loans were accepted as genuine and repayment sources were explained, no addition could survive.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
