ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where tax is ultimately levied under Section 115JB. Additions under normal provisions did not result in tax evasion.
The Tribunal deleted ₹2 lakh cash addition as no incriminating material directly linked the assessee to alleged on-money. Reliance solely on pen drive data and third-party statements without cross-examination was held insufficient.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
ITAT ruled that mere endorsement stating “Yes, I am satisfied” does not constitute valid sanction under Section 151. Mechanical approval without independent application of mind invalidated the reassessment.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹13.32 lakh penalty u/s 270A, holding bona fide exemption claim by charitable trust not misreporting; 200% penalty unsustainable.
ITAT deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
Tribunal ruled that once consideration was received and possession handed over in an earlier year, subsequent registration cannot shift taxability. Revenue’s reliance on Insight Portal data was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held allotment letter is an agreement to sell; stamp duty value on booking/allotment date applies u/s 56(2)(x) where payments were via banking channels. ₹45.03L addition set aside for verification.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid as approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
