The Tribunal held that when the difference between purchase price and DVO valuation falls within the 10% tolerance band, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii). The addition based on stamp duty value was therefore deleted.
ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held that failure to start charitable activities cannot by itself justify denial of registration under section 12AB. Since the trust’s objects were charitable and proposed activities were genuine, the rejection of registration and 80G approval was set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
ITAT Chennai rules 60% tax under Section 115BBE not applicable to AY 2017-18 transactions before 01-04-2017; directs tax on ₹30.43 lakh addition at 30%.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued beyond three years requires sanction from PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from PCIT was held insufficient, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
The Tribunal examined a case where the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and sundry creditors with supporting documents. It upheld estimation of income at 8% of turnover as a reasonable method when the genuineness of expenses could not be proved.
The Tribunal held that mere generation of surplus from activities does not convert a charitable trust into a business entity. The key issue is whether the surplus is applied for charitable purposes, requiring fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the identity and source of the investor. Since the AO relied mainly on tracing further layers of transactions without adverse evidence against the assessee, the addition under section 68 was deleted.
