The Revenue sought to levy penalty despite accepting the revised income declared by the assessee. ITAT held that accepted disclosures do not automatically amount to misreporting and cannot justify penalty under Section 270A.
The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when additions are ultimately made on issues not mentioned in the recorded reasons for reopening. The AO’s jurisdiction failed because no valid addition survived on the original escapement issue.
Tribunal held that purchase of land outside the prescribed period does not automatically disqualify exemption on construction of a residential house. Construction expenditure incurred within the time limit prescribed under Section 54 may still qualify for deduction. The issue was remanded for verification of actual construction costs.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
The Delhi High Court held that the period granted to an assessee for filing a reply under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while calculating limitation under Section 149. Since the Assessing Officer acted within the permissible period, the reassessment proceedings were upheld.
ITAT Bangalore held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the sale deed was registered after two years. Substantial investment and acquisition of rights in the property within the prescribed period were considered sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital losses can be carried forward even when long-term capital gains are exempt under the India–Mauritius DTAA. Exempt gains do not enter the computation of total income and therefore cannot absorb the losses.
The Surat ITAT held that for assessment years prior to AY 2013-14, the DVO had no authority under Section 55A to reduce the fair market value adopted by an assessee based on a registered valuer’s report. The resulting LTCG addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that business promotion, petrol, and travel expenses cannot be disallowed merely on assumptions of possible personal use. In the absence of specific defects or evidence, ad hoc disallowance under Section 37(1) was deleted.
