The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
Section 69C addition of ₹1.10 crore deleted as pen drive data lacked valid 65B certificate; ITAT Hyderabad held third-party digital evidence inadmissible without corroboration.
The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153. Only the actual period lost during search proceedings could be excluded, not the full 180 days.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded the capital gains issue for verification of demolition expenses under Section 48. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine evidence before allowing indexed cost.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that property payments were properly explained with bank records and affidavits. Additions under Section 69 for cash deposit and stamp duty were deleted.
ITAT held that cash loans taken for son’s education were bona fide and supported by evidence. Reasonable cause under Section 273B justified deletion of penalty.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside adjustments made under Section 143(1) after finding ambiguity on whether reasonable opportunity was granted. Issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
