Mumbai ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to purchase of MHADA leasehold property rights despite reliance on Section 50C rulings. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to obtain a DVO valuation before recomputing the addition.
Delhi ITAT held that unsecured loans already forfeited and offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year cannot again be taxed under Section 68 in the year of receipt. The Tribunal ruled that such action would result in impermissible double taxation.
Delhi ITAT held that notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 without digital signatures are invalid in e-proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment as void ab initio.
Delhi ITAT held that before the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under Section 54 could be claimed for investment in more than one residential house. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance relating to the second property purchase.
Delhi ITAT restored ₹6.30 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the Mauritius investor’s financial statements were unsigned and unauthenticated. The Tribunal held that incomplete documents cannot establish identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transactions.
Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. Fresh additions unrelated to the revision directions were therefore rightly deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record how the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reopening for violating the first proviso to Section 147.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22. The Tribunal ruled that amendments excluding goodwill from depreciable assets operate prospectively.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assessment provisions of Section 153C. ITAT reaffirmed that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by regular scrutiny proceedings.
