The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid where notices and orders showed shifting facts and no independent reasoning. Changing bases across stages reflected a casual approach that vitiated jurisdiction.
The issue was whether interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition is exempt from tax. The Tribunal held that after the 2010 amendment, such interest is taxable as income from other sources, not exempt under section 10(37).
The issue was whether reassessment and LTCG addition could rest solely on INSIGHT portal information. The ITAT held that without independent enquiry or corroborative material, such inputs cannot sustain reopening or additions. The key takeaway is that suspicion can-not substitute evidence.
The Tribunal considered reliance on investigation wing inputs alleging non-genuine entities. It ruled that adverse material must be shared with the assessee and corroborated through proper enquiry before sustaining additions.
The issue was whether partners’ capital contributions could be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the firm’s hands. The ITAT ruled that once partners are identified and capital intro-duction is proved, section 68 cannot be applied to the firm.
The Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
The Tribunal examined whether an addition under section 153C could survive without seized material. It held that in an unabated year, additions are impermissible without incriminating evidence found during search, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that revision cannot be exercised merely because the PCIT holds a different view. When the Assessing Officer’s view is plausible and based on enquiry, the assessment cannot be branded as erroneous or prejudicial.
The Tribunal examined whether an assessment ignoring a clear mismatch between turnover and TCS data could survive. It held that absence of enquiry on such discrepancy renders the order erroneous and prejudicial, justifying revision.
The Tribunal ruled that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance and must decide it on merits, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
