Tribunal sent back the matter to the AO to verify eligibility of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction based on Supreme Court guidelines regarding RBI licence status of the co-operative bank.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that without any incriminating material belonging to the assessee found during search, proceedings under Section 153C are invalid. Addition based solely on third-party statements was set aside.
The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter was remanded for verification to avoid wrongful taxation in the current assessment year.
ITAT ruled that a 76/23 split in chats reflected proposed refurbishment costs, not undisclosed cash consideration. In absence of corroborative material, addition under Sections 69 and 115BBE was held unsustainable.
Holding that the Assessing Officer recorded a mechanical satisfaction note without concrete incriminating evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeals and confirmed invalid jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of Form 10CCB along with return is a curable defect. A genuine start-up cannot be denied deduction under Section 80-IAC merely on procedural grounds.
