The ruling explains that DVO reference is a procedural safeguard, while the safe harbour proviso grants substantive relief. Both provisions can be applied simultaneously where conditions are satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that actual use of the property during the year is not a pre-condition for including it in the block of assets. Depreciation eligibility differs from eligibility for block inclusion under Section 50.
The Tribunal emphasized that without physical goods, exports and stock reconciliation would not be possible. Since quantitative records and gross profit remained consistent, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory option under Rule 11UA(2) lies exclusively with the assessee. Replacing DCF with NAV without demonstrating fatal flaws in valuation violates the legal framework.
The Tribunal ruled that adopting stamp duty value without obtaining a DVO report violates Section 50C when the assessee disputes fair market value. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication after obtaining proper valuation.
Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The Tribunal further ruled that once quantum addition is deleted, penalty cannot survive.
The case involved additions for alleged suppressed sales and purchases based on seized digital material. The Tribunal ruled that once search material exists, the AO must invoke Section 148 with proper approval, making the 143(3) assessment legally unsustainable.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
