The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such vagueness invalidates the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that valuation without giving the assessee an opportunity to object violates natural justice. It remanded the matter for fresh DVO assessment. The ruling stresses procedural compliance in valuation cases.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹29.22 lakh addition u/s 56(2)(x), holding that stamp duty value on booking/allotment date must be adopted where consideration was fixed earlier and paid through banking channels, not the higher value on registration date.
The Tribunal held that cash introduced into capital cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by past savings. It accepted the assessees financial history and balance sheet evidence. The ruling emphasizes practical evaluation of taxpayer capacity.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment for AY 2015–16 as time-barred under amended Section 149, since escaped income was below ₹50 lakh; entire penny stock addition u/s 68 was held void without examining merits.
The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not establish concealment, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace evidence. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary additions.
The Tribunal condoned delay due to reasonable cause and addressed valuation mismatch. It remanded the issue for DVO-based reassessment. The ruling balances procedural leniency with substantive justice.
ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify addition without proper verification; ad-hoc expense disallowance reduced from 20% to 10%.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of gratuity without examining supporting evidence requires reconsideration. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication based on newly submitted documents.
