he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
The issue was whether stamp duty value of redevelopment property is taxable without possession. ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies only on actual receipt, so no tax arises without possession.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal can be condoned when assessment order was not served. ITAT held that non-service constitutes sufficient cause, requiring fresh adjudication on merits.
The issue was addition of cash found during search claimed to belong to the assessee’s mother. The Tribunal allowed partial relief, accepting some explanations based on evidence and probabilities while sustaining the balance.
The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
