The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that expenses cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) based on assumptions if TDS is duly deducted and documented, setting aside additions exceeding ₹5 crore.
ITAT Mumbai held that donations to registered trusts cannot be taxed under Section 69C solely based on third-party statements without supporting evidence.
Tribunal held that natural justice was violated when notices were sent only by email despite explicit instructions otherwise. Appeals were restored with costs, and the Assessing Officer must reconsider the case after allowing additional evidence.
Tribunal deleted Rs. 10 lakh addition made under Section 68 where lender’s deposits were not independently verified. The assessee had no failure in proving identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness. Key takeaway: mere timing of lender’s bank deposits cannot trigger Section 68 addition without corroborative evidence
The ITAT held that excise-duty exemption for backward-area units is capital in nature since the incentive aims at industrial growth, not business profits. The ruling protects such incentives from tax under normal and AMT provisions.
The assessee’s capital-gain computation and share-transaction trail matched disclosed data. ITAT held the AO’s conclusion to be unsupported and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT held that once investments were accepted in prior assessments, their sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that Section 68 cannot be invoked without fresh incriminating evidence.
