ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable explanations supported by adequate documentation for the cash deposits, including opening cash balance, rental income, agricultural income, gifts from sons, and withdrawals from a capital account. The lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's books and documentation was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, and his view was one of the possible views, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The ITAT held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not justified in exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The tribunal found that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and the PCIT's order was passed without consulting the assessment records.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on the supplier's statement, which was not confronted to the assessee for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The evidence produced by the assessee was not adequately controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for interest under Section 244A only from the date the additional ground of appeal was filed before the CIT(A), as the delay prior to that was attributable to the assessee. The time taken by the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal cannot be excluded.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and sought to withdraw it. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly reported the transaction of sale of shares and claimed exemption, which cannot be equated to non-furnishing of particulars. The AO's belief that income escaped assessment lacked material basis.

The Tribunal found that the AO had correctly identified the transactions violating Section 40A(3). However, the CIT(A) had made a sweeping finding without examining each transaction individually. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.