The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The Tribunal held that mere booking of flats and receipt of token advances do not justify revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method without legally enforceable agreements.
ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band under property valuation provisions applies retrospectively. The PCIT’s revision was set aside as it amounted to a change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54F must be computed with reference to actual sale consideration received, not the deemed value under Section 50C. The matter was remanded for recomputation of LTCG accordingly.
PCIT s revision under section 263 against assessee was upheld holding that AO did not properly verify the very low Section 14A disallowance despite huge exempt income and also ignored INSIGHT portal inputs about alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that once satisfaction is recorded under Section 153C, assessment for covered years must proceed strictly under that provision. Framing assessment under Section 143(3) was declared jurisdictionally invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
The ITAT held that an assessment and appellate order passed without effective participation, allegedly due to notices sent to a wrong email address, must be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
