The Tribunal ruled that under-reported income must be calculated as the difference between assessed income and income processed under Section 143(1)(a). Penalty computation was sent back for recomputation due to incorrect methodology adopted by the AO.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
ITAT Delhi held that additions based on documents seized from a third party cannot be made under Section 143(3) without invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.
ITAT Delhi held that higher TDS under Section 206AA applied where the seller’s PAN was not linked with Aadhaar. However, the Tribunal observed that the tax department should have incorporated system alerts for inoperative PANs and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Bangalore ITAT held that indexation benefit for capital gains must be allowed from the year the property was first rented and income was offered to tax, not from the date of occupancy certificate.
Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of addition made under Section 69A after finding that the assessee produced complete documentary evidence for purchase and sale of LDPL shares. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion and investigation reports alone cannot override genuine DEMAT, bank and broker records.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings initiated under an incorrect and obsolete PAN suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal ruled that failure to consider the assessee’s reply under Section 148A invalidated the reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi deleted transfer pricing adjustments after holding that retail and after-sales businesses could not be compared with wholesale trading to OEMs. The Tribunal ruled that comparables must satisfy functional and market similarity under Rule 10B(2).
