ITAT held that although the assessee attempted to justify cash deposits as scrap sales, lack of key supporting records justified only a partial lump-sum addition. Key takeaway: Section 68 additions must be proportionate to actual evidentiary gaps.
The Tribunal recalled its prior order on US$ 32,13,307.60 credited in an offshore account, acknowledging documented proof of investment maturity. Explained sources prevent its inclusion as undisclosed assets.
ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is invalid if approved by JCIT instead of the Pr.CIT for cases reopened after four years. Limitation rules under section 151 must be strictly followed.
The Tribunal set aside ex-parte assessments and appellate orders because the assessee was incarcerated during proceedings. All cases were remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment with directions to grant fair hearing. Takeaway: incarceration does not exempt authorities from observing natural justice.
The Tribunal held that a 143(1)(a) adjustment denying ₹5.05 crore TDS credit was invalid because no mandatory show-cause intimation was issued. It ruled that a 139(9) defect notice cannot substitute the statutory opportunity required under 143(1), resulting in deletion of the entire ₹5.73 crore demand.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
The Tribunal held that a captive software development service provider cannot be compared with giant IT companies owning IP, diversified services, and global operations. By excluding these functionally dissimilar comparables, the entire ₹10.58 crore TP adjustment was deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that an appeal filed under the Black Money Act with a 5-day delay cannot be condoned without a notarised affidavit supporting the delay. The appeal was dismissed in limine, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Since the CIT(E) had already accepted the assessed income by issuing Form 4 under the DTVSV Scheme, initiating revision later was held impermissible. Key takeaway: once settled under DTVSV, the assessment cannot be reopened through Section 263.
The appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as the assessee submitted all relevant documents to the AO. Written submissions and VAT summaries are not additional evidence.
