The Hyderabad Bench emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely because an addition survives appellate scrutiny. The Revenue must establish deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Hyderabad ITAT observed that if a property is treated as stock-in-trade, the applicability of Section 43CA cannot be ignored. The ruling clarifies that deeming provisions under Section 50C and Section 43CA operate in different contexts.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The decision confirms that compliance with this statutory requirement is indispensable in reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the assessee had already filed the return under Section 139 before issuance of the notice. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction under Section 147 cannot be assumed on erroneous facts.
The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot assess the full transaction value in the hands of a confirming party absent proof of beneficial ownership. The decision underscores the importance of establishing actual receipt of consideration.
ITAT deleted the addition after finding that neither possession nor ownership had passed during the relevant assessment year. The decision emphasizes that actual transfer, not mere intention to sell, determines taxability.
ITAT held that proving the mode of payment is not enough to secure deduction for political contributions where evidence points to a bogus donation scheme. Taxpayers must establish the authenticity of the entire transaction.
The Tribunal held that rebate under section 87A could not be denied merely because LTCG exceeded Rs.1 lakh. It ruled that the relevant consideration was the tax computed on such gains, leading to deletion of the adjustment made under section 143(1).
The Delhi ITAT sustained the addition arising from the sale of listed shares after finding discrepancies in purchase records, including contradictory sale notes and payment receipts. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the underlying share transactions.
ITAT Lucknow held that derivative losses incurred by a spouse using funds gifted by the assessee can be clubbed and set off under Section 64(1)(iv). The matter was remanded to verify the actual quantum of eligible losses.
