The Tribunal held that where the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value is less than 10%, no addition can be made. The 10% tolerance band was treated as retrospective and applicable to AY 2017–18.
The ruling reiterates that adjudication based on incorrect material vitiates the entire order. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration of facts specific to the assessee.
While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification. Other legal grounds were treated as academic.
The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Since the investment was examined and accepted in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2015–16, the Revenue could not re-characterize the cost during the sale year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld full LTCG exemption.
NAV approach using prevailing market value of land, the fair market value exceeded the issue price. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s reliance on book value was unjustified and deleted the addition.
ITAT Delhi ruled that non-response by suppliers to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify treating purchases as bogus. As the assessee furnished bills, bank records, and GST details and sales were accepted, deletion of ₹3.97 crore addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
