Delhi High Court held that in cases involving multiple parties, the adjudication cannot be done by different Commissionerates ...

The assessee explained that income and TDS were recognized in different financial years. ITAT restored the matter for limited verification and barred automatic ...

The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify ...

The AO made a ₹90 lakh addition under section 68 despite the case being under limited scrutiny. ITAT held that crossing the approved scope renders the addition and assessment ...

The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash ...

The AO passed a rectification order while the core section 50C addition was pending fresh adjudication. ITAT ruled that such parallel adjudication leads to inconsistency and must be ...

The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could ...

The ITAT ruled that an inadvertent mistake in selecting the assessment year while filing Form 10AB cannot defeat an existing valid registration. Mechanical rejection without record verification was ...

The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh ...

The issue was whether cash salary and commission payments attracted disallowance under section 40A(3). The ITAT held that since each payment was below the per-day statutory limit, the disallowance of ...

ITAT Delhi ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without AO recording satisfaction under Section 14A(2), fully deleting ₹23.38 lakh claimed from exempt dividend ...

The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a ...