ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Since the investment was examined and accepted in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2015–16, the Revenue could not re-characterize the cost during the sale year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld full LTCG exemption.
NAV approach using prevailing market value of land, the fair market value exceeded the issue price. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s reliance on book value was unjustified and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
ITAT Amritsar upheld rejection of 12AB registration after finding that only ₹2.51 lakhs out of ₹40 lakhs received was spent on charitable activities. The Tribunal held that minimal charity expenditure and dominant non-charitable spending justified denial of registration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that non-response by suppliers to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify treating purchases as bogus. As the assessee furnished bills, bank records, and GST details and sales were accepted, deletion of ₹3.97 crore addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
The Tribunal ruled that undated, unsigned loose sheets lacking independent evidence cannot justify additions under Section 153A. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it deleted additions exceeding ₹2.10 crore for want of corroboration.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
