The Tribunal held that where consideration for a flat is paid through banking channels, stamp duty value as on the date of allotment must be adopted. Addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on registration-year valuation was quashed.
Upholding the CIT(A)s order, the Tribunal held that settled law bars additions made without factual verification. The case reinforces strict limits on arbitrary taxation of loan transactions.
ITAT deleted disallowance of depreciation, loan interest, and fuel expenses after finding cars were registered in the company’s name. Ad-hoc personal use disallowance without evidence was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that for years where assessments were already completed, additions under Section 153A cannot survive without incriminating material found during search. Large additions based on third-party statements and assumptions were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest on income-tax refund is taxable in the year of receipt and qualifies for Section 80-IA deduction, regardless of the year to which the refund relates.
The Tribunal held that a deduction cannot be disallowed merely due to delayed filing of Form 10CCB when it was available before processing. Procedural delay does not defeat a valid deduction claim.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
The Tribunal ruled that additions made on issues beyond limited scrutiny were without authority since proper conversion to complete scrutiny was not followed. The key takeaway is that violating CBDT instructions renders the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal ruled that estimating higher profit without rejecting audited books or finding major defects is impermissible. The declared 7% margin was accepted as reasonable, emphasizing limits on ad-hoc profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that DEPB income forms part of operating export income and cannot be excluded from turnover merely on a different view. Revision under section 263 was found unjustified where the original assessment involved due application of mind.
