The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ruling confirms that ambiguity in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) is fatal.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT. The ruling reiterates that the 2023 amendment to Section 151 cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that receipts on surrender of tenancy rights were capital in nature and not taxable under section 56(2)(x). It ruled that such receipts qualify for capital gains treatment and related exemptions.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
Tribunal held that no capital gains arise on amalgamation or demerger carried out as part of a genuine family settlement. It ruled that such restructuring is not a “transfer” under tax law, affirming the assessee’s indexed cost and tax-neutral treatment.
ITAT Chennai ruled that notional contract values in F&O trading cannot be treated as real income. The case was sent back to the AO for reassessment based on actual profits and losses.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if no fresh material emerges. Key takeaway: AO cannot reopen concluded assessments on pre-existing facts.
Tribunal held that additions for excess gold stock under Section 69A could not stand when purchases, job-work gold, and export stock were fully supported by invoices, confirmations, and bank records. The ruling emphasizes that reconciled and verified records override survey-time assumptions.
