ITAT Chennai held that reassessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years not sustainable since there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, reassessment is invalid for non-furnishing of actual reasons recorded.
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee could not respond to certain notices. The case was restored for reconsideration after giving adequate opportunity.
ITAT Chennai held that where unaccounted purchases are found and the corresponding sales are not doubted, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, and not the entire purchase value. Accordingly, addition towards unaccounted purchases duly restricted.
The Tribunal held that capital gains from property transferred to a spouse without consideration must be taxed in the hands of the transferor under Section 64(1)(iv). Assessing it again in the transferee spouse’s hands was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The tribunal examined whether the tax authority correctly calculated allowable promotional expenses. It held that the disallowance based on an incorrect assumption about the number of gifts issued was unsustainable.
The issue was whether the entire bank deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69. The tribunal held that deposits linked to business activity cannot be fully taxed and directed estimation of profit at 8%.
