Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that expenses cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) based on assumptions if TDS is duly deducted and documented, setting aside additions exceeding ₹5 crore.
