The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against disallowance of cash payments in a film production and real estate business. Since the assessee voluntarily offered 20% initially and later 80% of cash expenses as income, the additions were valid. The ruling emphasizes that self-conceded income cannot be contested in later appeals.
The Tribunal condoned a 345-day delay after finding the assessee’s claim of non-receipt of orders plausible. It noted that the AO never sought details for the disputed disallowances and CIT(A) failed to examine documents properly. The matter was remitted for fresh verification, ensuring fair opportunity.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court had already quashed the original assessment for violating the IBC resolution plan, the PCIT’s section 263 revision could not survive. Since a revision must rest on a valid assessment order, the entire 263 action became void. The appeals were allowed and the revision orders were cancelled.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
ITAT held that Section 69 cannot apply when the assessee is not proved to own the cash. Unrebutted affidavits established the source, and mere suspicion cannot justify an addition.
Tribunal held that an investment already assessed substantively in another person’s hands cannot again be taxed under Section 69. The case was remanded to avoid double taxation and ensure consistent adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application solely for delayed filing was improper and directed a denovo review under Section 80G. The is that delayed applications may still be examined on merits.
Tribunal held that a reassessment cannot be triggered solely on another person’s search statement. With no evidence against the assessee, the 147 proceedings and bogus-purchase addition were struck down.
NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal of large 54F claim overturned due to procedural lapses and miscommunication. Assessee granted fresh opportunity to substantiate ₹3.10 Cr exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully explained through matching earlier withdrawals. The addition of ₹15 lakh was removed as the source of funds was satisfactorily proven.
