The Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and undated draft agreement seized from a third party cannot justify an addition for unexplained investment without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey, when arising from regular business activity and disclosed in accounts, cannot be taxed as unexplained investment under Section 69B.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to deposit capital gains in CGAS does not bar Section 54 relief when the assessee invests in a new house within the prescribed period. The key takeaway is that substantive compliance overrides procedural lapses.
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
