The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the denial of the right to cross-examine a third party whose statement forms the foundation of a tax addition constitutes a serious violation of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the 68 additions of 1.56 crore (across two years) and remanded the case to the AO for de novo assessment with mandatory opportunity for cross-examination.
The Ahmedabad ITAT has struck down reassessment orders against Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, holding that the AO’s reliance solely on an ACB disproportionate assets report without independent application of mind or specifying escaped income is “borrowed satisfaction,” invalidating the Section 147 jurisdiction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Dehradun, quashed the retrospective cancellation of the charitable trust registration (Sec 12A/12AB) of Sushila Devi Centre. The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central), Kanpur, acted without jurisdiction, asserting that only the CBDT-notified CIT (Exemption) possessed the authority to cancel such registrations under section 120.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The ITAT granted complete relief, holding that the date of allotment of the new industrial plot, not the date of registration, is the relevant date of purchase for the Section 54G capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the transfer of industrial property from Delhi (Urban) to Ghaziabad (Non-Urban) qualified for the full shifting exemption.
This landmark ITAT Delhi decision clarifies the scope of Fees for Technical Services, stating that routine repair and replacement work, even with incidental installation by a foreign vendor, does not meet the FTS criteria. The Tribunal deleted the consequential TDS demand, emphasizing that the payment was for commercial profit, supported by precedents on routine maintenance.
Hyderabad ITAT dismissed an appeal, holding that a construction company couldn’t use the Section 153A assessment process, triggered by a search, to claim a Section 80-IA deduction it had omitted in its original return. Following the Supreme Court’s Shelly Products ratio, the Tribunal affirmed that the assessed income cannot be less than the income originally returned when the assessment was complete.
