The case involved additions based on seized diaries, alleged cash sales, and estimated profits. The ITAT partly accepted the assessee’s arguments and directed adoption of a revised industry GP rate for computing taxable income.
The Bangalore ITAT held that indexation benefit for capital gains must be allowed from the year the property was first rented and income was offered to tax, not from the date of occupancy certificate.
Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of addition made under Section 69A after finding that the assessee produced complete documentary evidence for purchase and sale of LDPL shares. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion and investigation reports alone cannot override genuine DEMAT, bank and broker records.
The Supreme Court held that allegations that GPAs were executed only as loan security failed because the appellant produced no proof of loan repayment, interest payment or discharge of debt. The burden initially remained on the person alleging fraud and sham transactions.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity when the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without permitting correction of technical defects in the condonation petition. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that only 8% of disputed purchases could be added where the assessee had disclosed corresponding sales and made payments through banking channels. Entire purchase disallowance was held to distort true business income.
The Tribunal ruled that capital gains on Transferable Development Rights must be computed after deducting the purchase cost of TDR from the sale consideration. The case was remanded because the assessee failed to submit documents before the AO earlier.
Mumbai ITAT held that genuine outstanding trade liabilities arising from accepted business transactions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that once purchases and expenses are accepted, corresponding creditor balances cannot be taxed separately.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
