ITAT Bangalore held that where the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and furnished a registered valuer’s report, the Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
ITAT Bangalore held that once a search under Section 132 was conducted, the assessment for the relevant year had to proceed under Section 147/148 in accordance with the post-2021 statutory scheme.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C requires the AO of the other person to independently assess whether seized documents have a bearing on that person’s income. A mechanical satisfaction note based solely on another officer’s communication was held invalid.
Jaipur ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer mechanically relied on Investigation Wing information without conducting independent verification.
The Tribunal ruled that third-party WhatsApp messages and decoded chat entries lacked evidentiary value against the assessee without corroborative material. The Revenue failed to prove that any cash was actually paid over and above the registered sale consideration.
The Tribunal ruled that technical lapses in e-verification cannot override a taxpayer’s lawful entitlement to a refund. Once the delay was condoned and the return accepted, denial of the refund was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening proceedings cannot survive where the mandatory sanction under Section 151 is not obtained from the prescribed authority. The defect was held to be jurisdictional, rendering the notice invalid.
Delhi ITAT held that donations qualifying under Section 80G do not lose eligibility merely because they form part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure.
The Tribunal ruled that addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure was unwarranted in the facts of the case. It reaffirmed that only the estimated profit arising from such purchases should be brought to tax.
Delhi ITAT ruled that delayed deposit of employees’ PF/ESI contributions attracts disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). The decision reinforces that such adjustments are permissible during summary processing of returns.
