The ITAT held that notices issued only through the ITBA Portal did not constitute valid service under the Income-tax Act and Rules. It remanded the Section 12AB application for fresh consideration after granting a proper hearing.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 10(23FBA) cannot be denied merely by reclassifying investment returns as business income without proper analysis. It found that the Assessing Officer failed to apply recognised tests for determining the nature of income.
ITAT Chennai condoned a 311-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting documents.
ITAT Chennai held that indexation on construction cost cannot be denied when details of the building are already contained in the registered sale deed and its annexure. The Tribunal directed recomputation of capital gains after allowing indexed construction cost.
The Chennai ITAT held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 on matters already under consideration before the appellate authority. The ruling emphasises the statutory bar against parallel revision proceedings on the same issue.
The Chennai ITAT held that excess stock found during a survey could not be taxed as unexplained investment when it had been accounted for in the books and offered as business income. The ruling emphasises that a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of stock defeats the application of Section 69B.
ITAT Chennai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that the assessment and appellate proceedings were concluded ex parte without deciding the issues on merits. The Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 does not permit the PCIT to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer when two legally sustainable views exist. A revision based solely on a different interpretation of taxability is unsustainable.
Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable in law and were directed to be deleted across all relevant assessment years as Revenue had failed to establish inflation of purchase prices; accrual of PSPL’s commission income to assessees; any flow back of funds to the Assessees; or that PSPL was a sham or fictitious entity.
