The Tribunal upheld addition of interest accrued on security deposits that was not disclosed in the return. It ruled that accrued interest must be taxed when not voluntarily offered by the assessee.
ITAT held that notice under Section 143(2) issued contrary to CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 is invalid. Since CBDT circulars are binding, the defective notice vitiated the entire assessment.
ITAT held that labeling transactions as accommodation entries without investigation is impermissible. With all three ingredients satisfied, the addition of ₹86.90 lakh was removed.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted the ₹14.70 lakh addition made under Section 69, holding that the NRI assessee had adequately explained the source of investment in property through documented overseas remittances routed partly via his mothers bank account.
ITAT held that mere signature or rubber-stamp approval under Section 151 is invalid if it does not reflect independent satisfaction. The reassessment and consequent additions were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held 100% bogus purchase disallowance unsustainable where sales and banking trail were proven; restricted addition to 5% profit element, following earlier years.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated by NFAC before Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 were without jurisdiction. Since Section 151A became effective only upon notification, the entire reassessment and related penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that providing PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and financial records satisfies statutory requirements. With no defects found by the AO, the addition was rightly deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai held that CPC cannot make an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation and considering the assessees response, as mandated by the proviso to the section.
ITAT Mumbai held temporary alternate flat under development deal is not a “transfer” u/s 2(47); notarised agreement gave no ownership, so ₹13.56 lakh addition deleted.
