The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only ₹5 lakh, far below the ₹50 lakh requirement under Section 149(1)(b). As a result, the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed.
Tribunal held that Section 87A rebate is linked to total income, which includes short-term capital gains. CPC’s denial of rebate on Section 111A gains was therefore unsustainable for AY 2024-25.
The ITAT held that income disclosed during a survey could not be reclassified from business income to Section 69A income through rectification proceedings. A debatable issue cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.
The ITAT Lucknow held that acute depression prevented timely compliance with statutory notices and amounted to a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Consequently, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that once immunity under Section 270AA was granted and the assessee accepted the assessment without appeal, the Assessing Officer could not later alter the assessment through Section 154 rectification. The ruling reinforces the finality and certainty intended by the immunity scheme.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that under-reported income must be calculated as the difference between assessed income and income processed under Section 143(1)(a). Penalty computation was sent back for recomputation due to incorrect methodology adopted by the AO.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
ITAT Delhi held that additions based on documents seized from a third party cannot be made under Section 143(3) without invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.
