The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be taxed twice and set aside the addition subject to verification.
The Tribunal held that enhancement of income without issuing notice under section 251(2) is invalid. Such action violates principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of enhancement and related penalty directions.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when assessed income equals returned income and TDS details are already on record.
The Tribunal observed disproportionate spending on contractual incentives compared to charity. It directed re-examination of whether such costs served trust objectives. The case highlights scrutiny of administrative expenses.
ITAT Mumbai upheld 12.5% addition on alleged bogus purchases, ruling that only profit element can be taxed since sales were accepted; full disallowance or 25% addition was held excessive and unjustified.
The Tribunal held that unfinished properties classified as work-in-progress cannot be subjected to notional rent under section 23. Since construction was incomplete, the addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot examine issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without approval. Since total deposits were assessed instead of only demonetization deposits, the addition was invalid and deleted.
The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid business decision that enabled higher sale consideration.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. It held that re-examining already scrutinized facts does not justify reopening under section 147.
The appeal involved a legal challenge regarding absence of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that failure to adjudicate this issue required fresh consideration and remanded the matter.
