The Tribunal ruled that undated, unsigned loose sheets lacking independent evidence cannot justify additions under Section 153A. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it deleted additions exceeding ₹2.10 crore for want of corroboration.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that where assessment is completed under Section 143(3), alleged earlier non-compliance with notices stands impliedly condoned. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore unsustainable and deleted.
Tribunal held that recurring software expenses such as licence renewals and database support fees are revenue in nature since no capital asset or ownership right was created. Deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
ITAT held that under the amended law, reopening after three years is barred where alleged escaped income is under ₹50 lakh. The notice issued under Section 148 was declared invalid and reassessment proceedings were quashed.
ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In absence of corroboration and cross-examination, the cash investment addition was deleted.
The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed dividend, if attracted, must be taxed in the hands of the substantial shareholder alone.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on investigation wing information without independent application of mind is invalid. Mechanical reasons cannot justify reassessment under Section 147.
