The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
While restoring the appeals, the ITAT directed expeditious disposal and warned against avoidable adjournments. The key takeaway is that condonation is granted to enable justice, not to prolong litigation.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte capital gains addition could not be sustained where the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity. Considering comparable treatment in a related case, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT held that valuation under Rule 10A fails where the department cannot prove that goods were manufactured as job work, reaffirming that free supply of some inputs alone is insufficient.
The Tribunal held that a surrender during survey cannot justify additions without supporting material. Statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value unless backed by records. Additions based solely on surrender were deleted.
The ITAT held that additional evidence filed under Rule 46A cannot be brushed aside without examination. Since the documents were vital to Section 68 requirements, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that a trust cannot be faulted for missing a statutory deadline when compliance was factually impossible. The rejection of 80G renewal was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to examine exemption eligibility and supporting documents, directing fresh consideration of service tax liability.
The assessee argued that revision proceedings were vitiated as they followed an audit objection. The ITAT rejected this plea, holding that audit-based information can validly trigger revision if conditions of section 263 are met.
