ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee proved repayment of ₹1 crore via banking channels, Revenue must first disprove the evidence before invoking sections 68 or 69C. Both the addition and related interest disallowance of ₹3.78 lakh were deleted.
The Tribunal held that a short-term loan received from a sister concern cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The loan was for business purposes, not for shareholder benefit. Key takeaway: transactions between sister concerns do not automatically attract dividend treatment even if there is common shareholding.
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
The Tribunal remanded the appeal after the CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee can now submit confirmations to substantiate claims. Key takeaway: procedural lapses should not prevent merit-based adjudication.
The assessee’s exemption under section 11 was initially denied as Form 10B was filed after the return. The court held that timely availability before assessment suffices. Key takeaway: Section 11 benefits apply if Form 10B is accessible during assessment.
An addition of ₹14,54,029/- was challenged on sundry creditor differences. The tribunal found total liabilities in the audited balance sheet matched the ITR. Key takeaway: Proper accounting of provisions ensures no unwarranted addition.
The Tribunal held that DCF valuation cannot be discarded merely because projections differ from actual results. AO’s failure to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer rendered the Section 56(2)(viib) addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned speaking order and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proving deliberate non-compliance. The matter was remanded with one final opportunity, reinforcing natural justice requirements.
