Difference between ready reckoner and stamp duty value was wrongly treated as misreported income. Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication, allowing assessee to present sale deeds, purchase deed, and bank statements.
This case examines whether the PCIT could revise an assessment under section 263 when the AO allowed interest income deduction under section 80P. The ITAT ruled that the AO’s order was a plausible view, and both conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
The Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 issued beyond the surviving period under TOLA are invalid, leading to quashing of assessment orders. Time-bar limits override procedural provisions.
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for re-examination of a section 36(1)(va) addition due to inadvertent error in the original audit report. The matter was restored to the AO to pass a speaking order. This highlights the importance of rectifying audit errors to prevent wrongful income additions.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Rs. 17.93 crore disallowance since the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. It applied binding High Court rulings holding that Section 14A cannot operate without exempt income. The decision confirms that the 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
The Tribunal held that reassessment after four years requires PCIT approval, not Additional CIT. The invalid sanction led to quashing of the Section 148 notice and dismissal of Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT held that cash deposits made during demonetization without proof of source justified addition under Section 69A. The ruling reinforces that dissolved entities must substantiate cash claims with evidence.
