ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds were refunded. The ruling emphasized verification of actual payment flow and subsequent cancellation events.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced in a partnership firm cannot be treated as unexplained merely on suspicion when confirmations, bank statements, and source details are available. The entire addition of ₹29 lakh under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly verify the genuineness of a cancelled property sale transaction before accepting the assessee’s claim of no capital gains. It ruled that lack of inquiry justified revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income before invoking Section 153C. Mechanical initiation of proceedings for multiple years was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that validity of reopening under Section 148 must be tested on the basis of material available when reassessment proceedings are initiated. Subsequent reduction in additions does not invalidate jurisdiction already assumed.
Hyderabad ITAT held that a notice issued under Section 148 after six years from the end of AY 2015-16 was invalid. The Tribunal ruled that the amended 10-year reopening provision cannot revive already time-barred cases.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer is invalid even if legal heirs participated in proceedings. Once informed of the death, the department must proceed only against the legal representative.
The Tribunal ruled that delayed filing or incorrect disclosure in Form 67 does not automatically disentitle an assessee from claiming Foreign Tax Credit. Substantial justice must prevail over technical procedural defects.
Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after three years must comply strictly with Section 151(ii) approval requirements. Failure to obtain sanction from the proper authority vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
