The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding no evidence that cash rent payments exceeded ₹10,000 on any single day. The ruling underscores that Section 40A(3) cannot be invoked without establishing an actual breach of the prescribed limit.
ITAT sustained the adoption of fair market value under Section 50C after finding that seized cash represented on-money from property transactions. The Tribunal upheld the valuation determined through the DVO process.
ITAT Chennai condoned a 311-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting documents.
ITAT Chennai held that indexation on construction cost cannot be denied when details of the building are already contained in the registered sale deed and its annexure. The Tribunal directed recomputation of capital gains after allowing indexed construction cost.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reassessment proceedings after finding that seized diaries recorded unaccounted cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits. The Tribunal held that statutory conditions for reopening were satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C requires the AO of the other person to independently assess whether seized documents have a bearing on that person’s income. A mechanical satisfaction note based solely on another officer’s communication was held invalid.
Jaipur ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer mechanically relied on Investigation Wing information without conducting independent verification.
The Tribunal ruled that third-party WhatsApp messages and decoded chat entries lacked evidentiary value against the assessee without corroborative material. The Revenue failed to prove that any cash was actually paid over and above the registered sale consideration.
The Tribunal ruled that technical lapses in e-verification cannot override a taxpayer’s lawful entitlement to a refund. Once the delay was condoned and the return accepted, denial of the refund was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening proceedings cannot survive where the mandatory sanction under Section 151 is not obtained from the prescribed authority. The defect was held to be jurisdictional, rendering the notice invalid.
