ITAT Mumbai ruled that replacing projected cash flows with actual profits while applying the DCF method is legally impermissible. The decision reaffirmed that DCF valuation is inherently based on future estimates and business expectations.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verification of alleged accommodation entries. Reliance solely on third-party investigation reports was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld tax addition where agricultural land was acquired below stamp duty valuation and DVO-determined fair market value. It ruled that agricultural status of land does not exclude applicability of section 56(2)(x).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent application of mind or establish a nexus between investigation material and escaped income.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained income since the amounts were recorded as sales turnover in the books and supported by VAT returns.
ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive verification of agricultural income and expenses. The Tribunal observed that detailed notices, documentary evidence, and independent inquiries were part of the original assessment proceedings.
ITAT Nagpur held that nominal donations received in small amounts could not be treated as non-voluntary contributions merely because PAN or full address details of donors were unavailable. The Tribunal found no adverse evidence questioning the genuineness of donations or activities.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
ITAT Hyderabad held that rural agricultural land situated beyond 8 kilometres from municipal limits cannot be taxed as a capital asset merely because the purchaser later used it for commercial plotting. The Tribunal ruled that future use by the buyer does not alter the land’s character in the seller’s hands.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the assessee had furnished complete details of investor companies and share allotment. The Tribunal held that verified share application money could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.
