ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since AO took plausible view of treating the interest chargeable u/s 28 of the Act being attributable to the business & allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held only ₹1.24 crore accumulation from A.Y. 1994-95 survives for possible Section 11(3) taxation; earlier years’ accumulations were non-existent, and matter restored to CIT(A) for limited verification.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad partly deleted notional rent additions, granting relief for Covid vacancies, sold properties and lack of ownership, while upholding unsupported self-occupation claims.
The Tribunal set aside a capital gains addition based solely on an unsigned digital MOU found in a third-party survey. It held that denial of document copies and cross-examination vitiated the assessment for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
Section 69C addition of ₹1.10 crore deleted as pen drive data lacked valid 65B certificate; ITAT Hyderabad held third-party digital evidence inadmissible without corroboration.
