The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
The Tribunal found the principles of natural justice were violated when the assessee, a villager unfamiliar with e-proceedings, was denied the opportunity to challenge the property’s stamp duty valuation and request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT dismissed an assessee’s quantum appeal, confirming that a ₹10.42 Cr write-off for decommissioned windmills was a capital loss, not a revenue deduction. Since the trust offered this as business income, the ITAT held the only permissible treatment was adjustment in the block of assets.
The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order, confirming that the sale of an entire residential building floor-by-floor to different buyers still constitutes the sale of one single house property for Section 54 claim purposes. Since the AO had already examined the capital gains claim in detail, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue, invalidating the Section 263 proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessees entire claim for business expenses, deleting a large proportionate disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee was an active working partner in multiple firms and a proprietor, the expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and the revenue failed to prove they were non-genuine.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
ITAT Ahmedabad restores the Rs. 41.02 lakh unexplained deposits case to the AO for de-novo assessment, allowing additional evidence and citing the assessee’s illiteracy.
The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the Section 147 reopening as the notice was issued within the four-year limit because the assessee hadn’t filed a return. However, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the Section 50C capital gains addition, ruling that the AO is bound by the DVO’s accepted valuation after making a reference.
The ITAT held that a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) is mandatory when the taxpayer objects to the stamp duty valuation of the property sold. The Tribunal set aside the addition of short-term capital gains, ruling that the AO erred by directly adopting the jantri value without obtaining a DVO report, and remanded the matter for re-adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the additional tax demand raised by applying Section 50C through Section 154 (Rectification), ruling that this aspect of the transaction must be adjudicated simultaneously with the primary, remanded issues of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. The final computation must await the fresh determination of the capital gains after the DVO report and verification of expenses.
