The ITAT held that additions under section 153A for unabated years require incriminating material found during search. Suspicion, past records or third-party allegations cannot substitute seized evidence.
The issue was dismissal of an appeal for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that a bona fide misunderstanding of limitation can justify condonation and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that warranty provisions based on past experience are deductible even if a sizeable opening balance exists. Estimated future obligations from past sales qualify as allowable business expenditure.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The ITAT ruled that section 69A cannot be invoked unless ownership of cash is established. Mere third-party seized ledgers without recovery of money are insufficient to sustain an addition.
The Tribunal confirmed that personal and university-linked assets of accused in a massive fake degree fraud are liable to attachment under PMLA, emphasizing that illicit proceeds include property acquired through fraudulent schemes.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained money provisions cannot be applied on conjectures when the source of cash is reasonably explained. With no dispute on withdrawals and savings, the demonetisation-period addition failed on merits.
The ITAT emphasised that dismissal of appeals without dealing with substantive grounds is legally untenable. NFAC was directed to rehear the reassessment appeals after granting reasonable opportunity.
The SAFEMA Tribunal confirms that even properties transferred before the 2016 amendment fall under benami rules if the property continues to be held by the benamidar. This ensures all ongoing holdings remain accountable under the Act.
SAFEMA Tribunal confirms attachment of property bought in a third party’s name where the actual consideration was paid directly by the appellant, highlighting that future benefit validates a benami transaction.
