Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
Tribunal remands the matter after finding that bank records showing cash withdrawals were not examined. The key takeaway is that cash-in-hand cant be treated as unexplained without proper factual verification.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot refer property valuation to the DVO if the registered valuer’s estimate is correct or higher than fair market value, overturning an inflated capital gains addition.
ITAT held that the AO’s verification of seized material, statements, and bank records constituted proper enquiry. Key takeaway: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers a different view.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO had conducted detailed enquiries into long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, and the PCIT’s revision under section 263 was based only on an audit objection. Since the AO’s view was plausible and well-supported, the revisional action was unsustainable and quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed appeals challenging rejection of registration under Sections 12A and 80G as the assessee failed to appear or submit documents despite repeated opportunities.
ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 147 is valid even if based on an old PAN, as banking and TDS records may reflect its continued use. Ex parte assessment was remanded for proper reconciliation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of opportunity of hearing while rejecting an 80G(5)(iii) application violates natural justice and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
