The Tribunal upheld revision after finding that the Assessing Officer accepted explanations without proper verification. The ruling stresses that insufficient enquiry can justify action under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that enhancing profit to 10% without comparables was arbitrary. Past accepted margins around 6% had to guide estimation. Income was directed to be computed at 6%.
The Tribunal clarified that precedents cannot replace factual analysis under TNMM. High-turnover mismatches justified exclusion, but other comparables required verification. The ruling underscores disciplined TP benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The ITAT held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) requires factual verification of business purpose. Interest-free loans to group entities were sent back for fresh examination.
The ITAT held that filing Form 10B on the extended due date, especially during COVID-19 relief periods, cannot by itself defeat Section 11 exemption. Procedural delay cannot override substantive compliance.
The ITAT held that capital gains under Section 50C cannot be mechanically applied where a sale deed is alleged to be an erroneous document and no real transfer occurred. The case was remanded to verify whether the transaction was actually a gift with no consideration or possession transfer.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
