The AO passed a rectification order while the core section 50C addition was pending fresh adjudication. ITAT ruled that such parallel adjudication leads to inconsistency and must be avoided.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 148 notices issued with approval from an incorrect authority are invalid. Reassessment orders for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were quashed.
The issue was whether bogus purchases disallowed under section 37(1) must be reclassified as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT held that where the source of expenditure is known, section 69C cannot be mechanically invoked.
ITAT Delhi ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without AO recording satisfaction under Section 14A(2), fully deleting ₹23.38 lakh claimed from exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
The tribunal ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand when the quantum addition forming its basis is deleted. The key takeaway is that penalty proceedings automatically fail without a surviving assessment addition.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and not fatal to exemption under section 11. Substantive charitable benefits cannot be denied for trivial delays.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
The Tribunal remanded the case involving addition of crypto closing stock after finding procedural defects. The appellate authority must first decide limitation before examining merits.
