The issue was whether a single, consolidated approval under section 153D for multiple assessees is legally valid. The ITAT held that such mechanical approval shows no application of mind and vitiates the entire search assessment.
The issue was whether capital gains could be computed under section 50C without referring valuation to the DVO despite the assessee’s objection. The ITAT held that denial of a DVO reference violates statutory rights and remanded the matter for fresh valuation.
The issue was whether unexplained deposits of ₹94.89 lakh could be sustained when evidence was not produced due to a serious family medical crisis. The ITAT held that genuine hardship warranted a fresh opportunity and remanded the matter for proper verification.
The Revenue sustained addition by assuming 50% of cash withdrawals were used for household expenses. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion-based estimates cannot replace evidence and granted substantial relief.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the underlying assessment was quashed. The ITAT held that once the 153A assessment was annulled, the penalty under section 270A automatically fell.
The Revenue made additions on alleged penny-stock transactions under section 68. The ITAT held that once section 153C jurisdiction itself fails, the additions automatically fall without examination on merits.
The issue was whether alleged negative stock justified profit estimation. The Tribunal held that value-based assumptions using average GP could not override item-wise quantitative stock records maintained on a daily basis.
The Tribunal ruled that a trust reporting a loss cannot be taxed on gross receipts. The addition by the AO was deleted, emphasizing that only net income is relevant for taxation under section 11.
The Tribunal held that section 54F does not require submission of a completion certificate. The key takeaway is that actual investment and timely construction, supported by evidence, are decisive.
The issue was whether satellite transmission fees constitute royalty in India. The Tribunal held that Article 12 of the DTAA governs and the receipts are not royalty. Domestic law amendments cannot override the treaty.
