The ITAT remanded a case where a charitable society’s 80G(5) registration was rejected because incidental sales were misclassified as business income. The Tribunal emphasized evaluating the society’s charitable purpose and proper documentation.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed the appeal as the AO/TPO selected a company that failed the turnover filter for transfer pricing. Key takeaway: Transfer pricing adjustments must follow proper comparability filters and FAR analysis.
The Tribunal held that shifting a disclosed loss from business to speculation does not amount to under-reporting when the quantum of loss is fully accepted. Since the tax liability remained Nil and no suppression was alleged, section 270A could not be invoked. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
The ITAT Raipur restored the appeal regarding deletion of ₹15.81 crore addition, highlighting procedural lapses by CIT(A) in accepting new evidence without remand. Key takeaway: AO’s verification is crucial before deleting large additions.
The assessee showed that the ₹1.11 crore payment was an advance toward a bank-auctioned property, fully supported by bank transfers and later formalised via a registered deed. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot attract section 69. The addition was therefore deleted.
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.
