The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order because the appeal was dismissed on limitation without properly examining delay condonation grounds. It held that non-speaking orders passed without adequate hearing violate principles of natural justice and require fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that adjournment based on pending comments from the Assessing Officer requires a definite timeline. It stressed orderly conduct and procedural fairness in handling multiple connected appeals.
ITAT Pune held that time limit of six months for filing an application u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act applies only to trusts which have not started charitable activities and not to trust which has already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional registration. Accordingly, application held to be valid and maintainable.
The ITAT held that Section 43B applies even if interest is capitalised to work-in-progress instead of claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was justified in reducing WIP for unpaid interest to a Scheduled Bank.
ITAT Mumbai held that even a small stock discrepancy can attract Section 69A if unexplained. Lack of supporting evidence led to confirmation of addition.
The Tribunal remanded the reassessment after the assessee sought another opportunity to explain the source of investment. The addition was set aside subject to payment of costs and fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that redevelopment involved transfer of the entire immovable property, entitling the assessee to indexed cost on the full asset. Restricting indexation to 22.5% land share was ruled unsustainable.
