Emphasizing judicial consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeal on referral fees and reimbursements. Identical issues decided in earlier years were followed, leading to deletion of all additions.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where tax is ultimately levied under Section 115JB. Additions under normal provisions did not result in tax evasion.
The Tribunal deleted ₹2 lakh cash addition as no incriminating material directly linked the assessee to alleged on-money. Reliance solely on pen drive data and third-party statements without cross-examination was held insufficient.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
ITAT ruled that mere endorsement stating “Yes, I am satisfied” does not constitute valid sanction under Section 151. Mechanical approval without independent application of mind invalidated the reassessment.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹13.32 lakh penalty u/s 270A, holding bona fide exemption claim by charitable trust not misreporting; 200% penalty unsustainable.
ITAT deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
Tribunal ruled that once consideration was received and possession handed over in an earlier year, subsequent registration cannot shift taxability. Revenue’s reliance on Insight Portal data was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held allotment letter is an agreement to sell; stamp duty value on booking/allotment date applies u/s 56(2)(x) where payments were via banking channels. ₹45.03L addition set aside for verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
