The ITAT Hyderabad held that an uncorroborated loose sheet could not justify an addition under Section 69 for alleged on-money payment. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition as no independent evidence supported the Revenue’s case.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing because appellate notices were not served in the mode opted in Form 35. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition under Section 69 cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated loose sheet. The Tribunal ruled that independent evidence is necessary to establish alleged on-money payments.
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.
ITAT Hyderabad held that dismissal of an appeal under section 249(4)(b) was unjustified where the assessee claimed that the receipts were exempt retirement benefits and no advance tax liability arose. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the nature and taxability of the amounts reflected in Form 16.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
