The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
Assessee succeeded in cross-objection as reassessment lacked jurisdiction and Section 69C addition was inapplicable, confirming deletion of addition and quashing proceedings.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
Tribunal held that addition for alleged accommodation entry could not stand where AO made no independent verification. Genuine sales, banking-channel receipts and tax records supported deletion.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
ITAT quashed reassessment notice issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO. Addition of ₹29.69 crore was invalidated, and Revenue’s appeal became infructuous.
