The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
The Tribunal held that deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed mechanically based on past relief. Each infrastructure project must be independently examined to determine whether it qualifies as development or is merely a works contract.
The ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 153C cannot extend beyond the statutory six assessment years. Jurisdiction assumed outside this period was held void.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
CESTAT Allahabad held that finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation have attained finality. Accordingly, the attempt to re-agitate the same issue in subsequent proceedings is barred by principles of Res Judicata. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted additions holding that expenses incurred on behalf of an employer company and recorded in its books cannot be assessed in the employee’s personal assessment.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has no power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-appearance and must adjudicate issues on merits under section 250(6).
