Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit of ₹25 lakh under CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 applies to leave encashment claims under Section 10(10AA)(ii). Full exemption of ₹10.15 lakh was allowed to the retired SBI employee.
The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence. It ruled that no addition can survive merely on third-party material lacking proof of actual cash movement.
The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and MCA records of lenders were furnished. The ruling reinforces that documentary evidence can successfully rebut allegations of bogus loans.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in quoting TAN cannot result in denial of TDS credit when Form 16 and Form 26AS clearly establish tax deduction. The decision emphasizes substance over procedural technicalities.
The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific finding establishing contravention of Section 269SS is mandatory before imposing penalty.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Section 153. It ruled that the assessment order passed beyond the permissible period was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment in a residential property within the prescribed period can qualify for exemption even without a registered conveyance deed.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
