The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot refer property valuation to the DVO if the registered valuer’s estimate is correct or higher than fair market value, overturning an inflated capital gains addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income. The AO issued a 200% penalty without identifying the statutory limb or giving reasons. Since the order lacked satisfaction and reasoning, the penalty was quashed.
ITAT held that section 263 cannot be invoked unless the PCIT pinpoints an actual error in the AO’s order; since no specific mistake was shown, the revision was invalid.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld that the assessee could adopt NAV for one sale and DCF for another, as both are recognized under Rule 11UA. Since the AO failed to show any defect in the valuation reports, the substituted FMV was held invalid. The deletion of the section 50CA addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
