Whether outstanding purchase consideration can be treated as unexplained money. Addition quashed. Takeaway: Deferred payments later settled via banks with TDS cannot be taxed on suspicion.
The issue was whether entire brokerage receipts credited to a bank account could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that only the profit element is taxable and estimated income at 25% of gross commission.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
This ruling clarifies that an assessee can be treated as an agent of a non-resident only if income is received directly or indirectly for the NRI. In the absence of such receipt or business connection, representative assessment fails.
The Tribunal examined whether execution of a development agreement alone triggers capital gains. It held that without consideration or statutory transfer of possession, no capital gains arise.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void under the faceless regime. Since the assessments were invalid, all consequential penalty orders were also quashed.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void. Under the faceless reassessment scheme, only the Faceless AO has jurisdiction to act.
The Tribunal emphasized that where land cost is separately reflected, indexation must be granted. It remanded the matter to verify records and recompute capital gains accordingly, ensuring lawful assessment.
The tribunal held that reassessment initiated through a jurisdictional officer instead of the mandatory faceless mechanism was invalid. Notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must follow the faceless scheme, failing which the entire assessment collapses.
The tribunal held that dismissal for non-prosecution was invalid where notices were not served on the email ID specified in Form 35. Authorities must strictly follow the communication mode chosen by the taxpayer, failing which proceedings are vitiated.
