Receipt and repayment of Rs. 2.02 crore via proper banking channels establishes genuineness of the transaction; Section 68 addition was deleted despite non-materialisation of business.
The Tribunal condoned an 868-day delay arising from wrong professional advice and Covid-related extensions, holding that the assessee showed sufficient cause. It ruled that the 50C addition under Section 153A lacked incriminating material and directed a full de-novo review.
The Tribunal found that an off-market transaction, by itself, does not establish bogus capital gains when supporting records are intact and no direct involvement in price manipulation is shown. The exemption under Section 10(38) was therefore allowed, rejecting additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the AO relied on outdated investigation data without linking it to the assessee’s transactions. Since the information pertained to a period before the assessee even acquired the shares, the reopening lacked jurisdictional foundation. As a result, the entire addition for alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed PCIT’s revisionary orders, holding that Section 263 powers cannot be used when the AO has made thorough enquiries. Revision requires demonstrable error prejudicial to revenue, not mere differences of opinion.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the PCIT himself does not conduct the verification he insists was missing. It reaffirms that revision requires demonstrated lack of inquiry, not assumptions.
The ITAT held that without a condonation petition, a 300-day delay cannot be excused. The ruling underscores that delay must be justified before merits—including Section 80P—can be considered.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal after noting that the case was already remanded under section 251(1)(a). The once a matter is reopened before the AO, the assessee may abandon the pending appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot suffer due to the AO’s inaction under section 270AA(4), directing grant of immunity and cancelling the 270A penalty.
ITAT confirmed that External Development Charges paid to HUDA constitute payment for work, making TDS deduction mandatory and sustaining the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
