The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
The case revolved around treating bank deposits as unexplained income without following the statutory mandate of rejecting books of account. The Tribunal reaffirmed that compliance with section 145(3) is mandatory before estimation, and granted full relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned an 893-day delay citing genuine medical reasons and decided the appeal on merits. It held that cash deposits arising from business receipts cannot be split arbitrarily and must be assessed through reasonable profit estimation.
This case dealt with an addition confirmed without adequate opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal held that passing an order without considering filed replies is unsustainable, and directed a de novo assessment.
The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid where notices and orders showed shifting facts and no independent reasoning. Changing bases across stages reflected a casual approach that vitiated jurisdiction.
The issue was whether interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition is exempt from tax. The Tribunal held that after the 2010 amendment, such interest is taxable as income from other sources, not exempt under section 10(37).
The issue was whether reassessment and LTCG addition could rest solely on INSIGHT portal information. The ITAT held that without independent enquiry or corroborative material, such inputs cannot sustain reopening or additions. The key takeaway is that suspicion can-not substitute evidence.
The Tribunal considered reliance on investigation wing inputs alleging non-genuine entities. It ruled that adverse material must be shared with the assessee and corroborated through proper enquiry before sustaining additions.
The issue was whether partners’ capital contributions could be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the firm’s hands. The ITAT ruled that once partners are identified and capital intro-duction is proved, section 68 cannot be applied to the firm.
The Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
