The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of the faceless authority violated Section 151A. With the notice invalid, the reassessment and jewellery addition were quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred in applying a 15% illiquidity discount on shares valued by the NAV method. SEBI MF guidelines and DCF-based precedents were deemed irrelevant. The assessee’s valuation was confirmed, and the Rs. 8.70 crore addition was nullified.
The Tribunal annulled the reassessment after finding that both the notice and order were issued to a company that had been struck off. It held the proceedings invalid and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders after the statutory one-month period prescribed under Section 144C(13) is invalid. The assessee’s appeals were allowed, and both orders were set aside.
The ITAT concluded that non-compliance with faceless procedure under Section 151A renders Section 148 notices invalid, nullifying both substantive and protective additions.
The Tribunal held that additions must be supported by actual evidence, not mere surmise from third-party statements. The assessee’s invoices and valuer reports disproved alleged cash payments, leading to complete deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed uploading of Form 10B, treating the lapse as procedural and directing allowance of exemption.
The Tribunal observed that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven through confirmations, returns, and banking trails, and the AO failed to conduct enquiries under Sections 133(6) or 131. It also held that the ₹6.45 lakh loan difference belonged to past years, making the entire ₹22.45 lakh addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that CSR expenses donated to recognized charitable institutions satisfy the conditions of Section 80G. It emphasized that statutory CSR obligations do not interfere with 80G eligibility and directed allowance of the deduction.
