Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
ITAT held that refusal to admit evidence due to factory sealing and death of the assessee was unjustified and ordered fresh assessment after proper verification.
ITAT held that issuing a draft notice with under 24 hours to reply violated natural justice. The assessment and appellate orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with fair opportunity.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine bank statements and supporting documents explaining cash deposits. The issue was restored for fresh verification with due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of formal registers or third-party bills does not automatically make expenses bogus. Additions based purely on estimates, without proof of inflation, are arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based solely on third-party statements are invalid when cross-examination is denied. Reliance on investigation reports without independent inquiry violates principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether Section 263 could be invoked despite adequate verification by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible, evidence-based view cannot be revised merely due to a differing opinion.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that expenses covered by a binding APA cannot be revisited under section 37 on a “need or benefit” test. Reopening settled transfer pricing issues would defeat the statutory purpose of APA.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal clarified that revisionary jurisdiction presupposes a valid assessment order. Where Section 153C itself is time-barred, Section 263 has no application.
