The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153. Only the actual period lost during search proceedings could be excluded, not the full 180 days.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded the capital gains issue for verification of demolition expenses under Section 48. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine evidence before allowing indexed cost.
ITAT Hyderabad held that failure of the Assessing Officer to examine ownership of multiple houses while allowing Section 54F deduction made the order erroneous and prejudicial. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to ensure consistent adjudication.
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
ITAT condoned a 106-day delay considering the assessees senior citizen status and bona fide reasons. On merits, it restored the capital gains issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.
The Tribunal held that payment towards traffic violation is hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) and not deductible. Though books were rightly rejected, estimation at 8% was moderated to 5% in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that denial of India–USA DTAA rates during processing under Section 143(1) was unjustified. It observed that Form 10F facilitates verification and does not create the right, making delayed compliance curable.
ITAT clarified that a statement recorded during search does not automatically become incriminating material. Without supporting documentary evidence, additions under Section 69A cannot survive.
