The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153. Only the actual period lost during search proceedings could be excluded, not the full 180 days.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded the capital gains issue for verification of demolition expenses under Section 48. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine evidence before allowing indexed cost.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that property payments were properly explained with bank records and affidavits. Additions under Section 69 for cash deposit and stamp duty were deleted.
ITAT held that cash loans taken for son’s education were bona fide and supported by evidence. Reasonable cause under Section 273B justified deletion of penalty.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside adjustments made under Section 143(1) after finding ambiguity on whether reasonable opportunity was granted. Issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh legal claims even if not made in the return of income. BSNL VRS-2019 compensation was held exempt u/s 10(10B), and rejection by CIT(A) was set aside.
ITAT Lucknow held that additions under Section 68 in search cases cannot be made without incriminating material found during search. Penny stock LTCG additions were deleted and departmental appeals dismissed.
ITAT Lucknow held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked without specifying what enquiries the AO failed to conduct. As the PCIT did not spell out such deficiencies, the revision order was quashed.
