The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed due to lack of clarity and inconsistency.
The Tribunal examined whether an increase in loans was due to fresh borrowing or reclassification. It remanded the matter for verification, holding that no addition is warranted if no new funds were received.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
Tribunal rules that Section 14A disallowance must be limited to investments yielding exempt income and orders recomputation under Rule 8D. It also allows ESOP expenses as a valid business deduction under Section 37(1), treating them as an ascertained liability and not a notional or capital expense.
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made available. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The issue was whether utilisation of earlier accumulated income qualifies for fresh exemption. The Tribunal held it amounts to double deduction as exemption was already claimed earlier.
The issue was whether purchases could be treated as bogus based on investigation reports. ITAT held that when documentary evidence and asset existence are proven, additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled that absence of adverse evidence makes such additions unsustainable.
ITAT held that once an assessee adopts a prescribed valuation method under Rule 11UA, the AO cannot change or substitute it. The ruling reinforces taxpayer autonomy in selecting valuation approaches.
Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authority as prior approval must mandatorily be obtained from the authorities specified under Section 151(ii) and approval by the Principal Commissioner was not valid in such cases.
