ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹2 crore additions, holding assessment based solely on third-party investigation report and assumed 3% commission unsustainable without independent evidence or proof under Sec 69A.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)’s findings while restricting addition to 12.5% of purchases. As key facts were not properly examined, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
he Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and strict proof of concealment is required. Estimated additions alone cannot justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal ruled that assessment orders in e-proceedings must be digitally signed as per CBDT instructions. A manually signed order was held illegal and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai allowed foreign tax credit of ₹90,208 despite delay in filing Form 67, holding Rule 128 directory and procedural lapse cannot defeat substantive Sec 90/DTAA claim.
The Tribunal ruled that entries found in a third-party pen drive cannot justify addition without independent corroboration. Failure to allow cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, leading to deletion.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for Section 54 is possession of the new residential house, not the agreement date. Since possession was taken within two years of sale, exemption was allowed.
ITAT deleted ₹60 lakh addition as the Revenue relied solely on a third-party confession without independent verification. Documentary evidence such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements discharged the assessee’s onus.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
Emphasizing judicial consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeal on referral fees and reimbursements. Identical issues decided in earlier years were followed, leading to deletion of all additions.
