ITAT rejected the tax authority’s approach of increasing asset values on the assumption of appreciation. Fair market value under Section 56 must be based on book values as mandated by Rule 11UA.
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
The authority cancelled existing registration without invoking the procedure under Section 12AB(4). The Tribunal ruled that supersession of registration requires proof of specified violations and due process. In its absence, cancellation was illegal.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
ITAT ruled that property transferred under a bona fide family settlement is outside the scope of Section 56(2)(vii). Such arrangements are not treated as taxable gifts even if formalised through a gift deed.
The assessee challenged jurisdiction for lack of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that once the belated return was invalid, assessment under Section 144 was lawful.
The ITAT ruled that ad-hoc estimation of sundry creditors as ceased liabilities is not permissible when purchases and trading results are accepted. Section 41(1) can be invoked only on proven remission or cessation, not assumptions.
The authorities compared intra-group commission rates without economic analysis. The Tribunal ruled that such an approach leads to invalid transfer pricing adjustments.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
The issue was whether purchases recorded by the assessee were genuine. The Tribunal held that seized Tally data and statements proved bogus purchases, justifying full addition.
