Tribunal held that ownership records alone cannot justify agricultural income; absence of Khasra and produce-sale evidence required remand. Cultivation must be proved with proper documentation.
ITAT remanded assessment where substantial 69A addition was made without giving the assessee a chance to present his case. Procedural fairness is critical, even in non-filing scenarios.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of foreign exchange loss on external commercial borrowing cannot be taxed under section 28(iv) as it is capital in nature, avoiding double taxation.
The ITAT held that the AO could not deny TDR cost in both AY 2018–19 and AY 2020–21, directing allowance of the deduction. Authorities cannot blow hot and cold on the same issue across years.
Tribunal holds that selling goods below cost does not create marketing intangibles and cannot be capitalised as brand-building expenditure. ESOP reimbursements are reaffirmed as allowable business expenses without TDS.
ITAT Delhi set aside reassessment because notices under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) lacked digital or manual signatures. Procedural lapses can invalidate reassessments entirely.
The appellate orders for AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 were set aside as the deceased assessee was not heard. The legal heir is now allowed to present documents and have the appeal adjudicated afresh.
Tribunal held that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of shareholders were proven through documents filed before AO and CIT(A). Since authorities ignored valid evidence, the section 68 addition was deleted.
An addition of ₹1 crore under section 68 was challenged on the ground that the assessee had no opportunity to produce supporting documents. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment, keeping all contentions open.
The tax authority’s assessment and penalty were set aside as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to submit documents or Rule 46A application. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice before rejecting section 54F claims.
