Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed bank accounts with explained credits. The Tribunal deleted ₹3.29 crore addition for lack of incriminating material.
Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
The Delhi ITAT held that large cash deposits and investigation wing information alone do not create valid reason to believe for reopening assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction is invalid in law.
The Kolkata ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income addition is based on peak credit estimation. The Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not automatically prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT upheld disallowance of ₹11.71 lakh towards loan processing fees after finding that the loans were obtained for broader business purposes and not for acquiring the property generating rental income. The ruling clarified the limited scope of deductions available under Section 24(b).
ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment should be considered where property consideration was fixed earlier and payments were made through banking channels before registration.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction under Section 153C is not a mechanical exercise and must clearly establish the relevance of seized material to the assessee’s income.
The Kolkata ITAT held that a commercial loan repaid within the same financial year along with interest and TDS compliance could not be treated as a bogus accommodation entry under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and banking transactions established the genuineness of the loan.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam reduced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) from Rs.30,000 to Rs.10,000 after treating non-compliance with three notices under Section 142(1) as a single default. The Tribunal granted partial relief while holding that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance.
