The Tribunal held that contradictory third-party statements and unverified allegations cannot form the sole basis for taxing alleged on-money transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
CCPA held that advertising bread as 100% Whole Wheat despite containing only 87% wheat flour was misleading. The authority ordered withdrawal of the advertisements and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty.
The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings after holding that they were founded on an undated and uninvestigated complaint without any direct link to the petitioner. The Court found the reopening to be based on conjectures and surmises.
The ITAT held that relying on tally data and a forensic report without providing them to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer while retaining the commission rate at 0.15%.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that repayment of the entire loan with TDS-compliant interest payments undermined the allegation that the loans were accommodation entries. The additions towards interest and commission were deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of investment outside the books of account.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and 269T. Following the Gujarat High Court’s precedent, it deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that incomplete data retrieved from an inoperative computer could not prevail over audited books of account. It deleted the addition after finding no evidence of suppressed receipts or unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee’s consultant did not amount to misreporting of income under Section 270A(9). The penalty was cancelled as there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
