The tribunal held that land registered in an individual’s name but fully paid by a society amounts to receipt of property without consideration. Such benefit is taxable as income under section 56(2)(vii).
The tribunal ruled that rejecting books and estimating profits bars further item-wise disallowances. Authorities cannot “blow hot and cold” by disallowing expenses from the same rejected records.
The tribunal held that sending notices through email despite the assessee expressly opting for physical service constituted sufficient cause for delay. Procedural lapses by tax authorities cannot deprive an assessee of the right to be heard.
The tribunal ruled that lack of digital literacy and non-receipt of electronic orders constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. A liberal approach was adopted to ensure substantial justice, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
Pune ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after the assessee argued that adequate opportunity was not provided to explain the source of funds received. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with proper hearing and liberty to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the tax department cannot substitute actual sale consideration with a notional market price without express legal provision, and deleted the entire addition.
The Tribunal upheld addition of demonetisation cash deposits after rejecting the claim that funds came from old cash withdrawals. Mere assertion of past withdrawals, without evidence of cash retention, was held insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
