The Revenue sought to tax total on-money collected under section 69A. The ITAT ruled that on-money forms part of business receipts and must be assessed on a profit basis. The key takeaway is that taxation cannot ignore unaccounted expenses linked to such receipts.
ITAT Mumbai held that alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed when the assessee provides invoices, receipts, bank proofs, and GST compliance. The ruling confirms that suppliers’ non-filing alone is insufficient for disallowance.
The Revenue sought to reopen completed assessments under section 153A without fresh incriminating evidence. The Tribunal ruled that such additions are barred, following Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal upheld reassessment based on Investigation Wing material alleging accommodation entries. It ruled that such tangible inputs justified reopening despite a completed scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that delayed filing of an audit report cannot justify wholesale disallowance of expenses at the CPC processing stage. Such action falls outside the limited scope of Section 143(1) adjustments.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated beyond three years requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. Sanction granted by the PCIT was invalid, rendering the entire reassessment void.
The appeals were rejected without examining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that appellate remedies cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities and restored the cases.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are legally unsustainable. Since jurisdiction itself failed under TOLA principles, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The issue was whether SEZ deduction could be denied for alleged late filing of Form 56F. The Tribunal held that filing within the CBDT-extended deadline was valid and CPC erred in disallowance. The ruling confirms that statutory extensions must be honoured in return processing.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
