The Tribunal ruled that once the Assessing Officer scrutinized the Section 10AA claim and R&D allocation, revision cannot be invoked. Section 263 cannot be used to re-examine issues already verified during assessment.
The ruling explains that DVO reference is a procedural safeguard, while the safe harbour proviso grants substantive relief. Both provisions can be applied simultaneously where conditions are satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that actual use of the property during the year is not a pre-condition for including it in the block of assets. Depreciation eligibility differs from eligibility for block inclusion under Section 50.
The Tribunal emphasized that without physical goods, exports and stock reconciliation would not be possible. Since quantitative records and gross profit remained consistent, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory option under Rule 11UA(2) lies exclusively with the assessee. Replacing DCF with NAV without demonstrating fatal flaws in valuation violates the legal framework.
The Tribunal ruled that adopting stamp duty value without obtaining a DVO report violates Section 50C when the assessee disputes fair market value. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication after obtaining proper valuation.
Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The Tribunal further ruled that once quantum addition is deleted, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that disallowance based solely on tax audit reporting required factual verification. The issue was remanded for examining whether the power liability provision was wrongly treated as contingent.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of ₹6 crore addition after lenders responded to notices under Section 133(6) and confirmed transactions. Verified evidence and absence of deficiencies proved loan genuineness.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
