AO treated ₹13 lakh cash deposits as unexplained, but ITAT found all deposits supported by cash book and bank self-cheques. Entire addition under section 68 was deleted.
ITAT held reassessment invalid where AO acted on belated return without issuing mandatory 143(2) notice. Entire reassessment under sections 144/147 was quashed despite late filing of return.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹2.81 crore transfer pricing adjustment, ruling that selected comparables were functionally and financially dissimilar. PSM was maintained as the Most Appropriate Method, ensuring fair benchmarking of international transactions.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
CIT(A) wrongly rejected the assessee’s rectification petition under section 154 despite portal evidence. ITAT restored the appeal for fresh adjudication with full opportunity to submit evidence.
With all Section 68 additions deleted across the three years, the basis for penalties under Section 271(1)(c) disappeared. The Tribunal directed complete removal of penalties, highlighting that concealment cannot be presumed when additions themselves lack merit. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings cannot survive defective assessments.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
Tribunal invalidates reassessment where AO relied on incorrect data and PCIT granted mere Yes approval. Highlights importance of independent application of mind under Sections 147/148/151.
The Tribunal reduced commission estimations for sale/purchase and loan entries to 0.40% and 0.50%, excluding intra-group transactions. This ensures compliance with judicial precedents and prevents arbitrary income additions.
ITAT Kolkata struck down AO’s whimsical treatment of LTCG as bogus while simultaneously accepting STCG from the same shares. The Tribunal deleted the entire ₹53.24 lakh addition, noting both gains arose from identical transactions and evidence.
