ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory and the AO was justified in invoking section 154. However, the levy is consequential to additions made, so if additions are deleted in quantum appeals, the interest will also be deleted.

The Tribunal held that no additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment was already completed and non-abated. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 treating share application money as unaccounted income are not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessments were completed prior to the search. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that no additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment was already completed and non-abated. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that no additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment was already completed and non-abated. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated that certain advances were actually payables, some were investments in a minor's name, one was to a proprietorship concern of the assessee, and others were made out of sufficient interest-free funds. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided bank statements showing the earnest money paid and its subsequent refund by the Mining Department. This transaction, reflected in the bank statement, was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 treating share application money as unaccounted income are not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessments were completed prior to the search. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of the sources of credit in his bank account before making the investments. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions to hold that once the assessee discharges its onus by providing necessary evidence, the burden shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 68 treating share application money as unaccounted income are not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessments were completed prior to the search. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits.