The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of share purchase cost under Section 115BBE, arising from alleged bogus LTCG, is interlinked with the quantum issue.
ITAT Hyderabad held only ₹1.24 crore accumulation from A.Y. 1994-95 survives for possible Section 11(3) taxation; earlier years’ accumulations were non-existent, and matter restored to CIT(A) for limited verification.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad partly deleted notional rent additions, granting relief for Covid vacancies, sold properties and lack of ownership, while upholding unsupported self-occupation claims.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Section 69C addition of ₹1.10 crore deleted as pen drive data lacked valid 65B certificate; ITAT Hyderabad held third-party digital evidence inadmissible without corroboration.
The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
