The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held that reopening was barred as there was no failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal examined whether a cash addition under section 69 could rest solely on an Excel sheet seized from a third party. It held the addition unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains from listed share sales could not be treated as bogus merely due to high profits. In the absence of contrary evidence, additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted.
The issue was whether a trust with mixed charitable and religious objects could be denied 80G approval. The Tribunal held that composite trusts are eligible if religious expenditure stays within statutory limits, and directed grant of approval.
The AO denied exemption relying on an inspector’s report citing minimal construction. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed a habitable residence, entitling exemption.
The ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 where the Assessing Officer accepted large demonetisation cash deposits without proper verification. Failure to examine utilisation of withdrawals or call for a cash book rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether an appeal can be rejected without first considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that dismissal without condoning delay is invalid and requires fresh adjudication.
The issue was confirmation of penalty without reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking appellate order violates law and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that artificial profits or losses arising from Client Code Modification in share transactions carried out in F&O segment requires transaction-wise reconciliation. Accordingly, matter restore to the file of AO.
The issue was whether rental income from land qualified as agricultural income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal held that inadequate proof justified remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
