The ITAT Dehradun held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied merely for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme when the assessee actually invested the sale proceeds in agricultural land within the statutory period. The ruling treats such non-deposit as a procedural lapse.
The tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding it addressed an incorrect issue. It ultimately upheld that no disallowance applies when no expense is claimed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. Applying the principle of consistency, the penalty was deleted.
ITAT upheld deletion of penalty as the exemption issue was pending before the High Court. The assessee had filed an undertaking under Section 158A. The ruling highlights that penalty cannot be sustained when the core issue is yet to be finally adjudicated.
ITAT held that addition under Section 69B based only on a loose sheet seized from a third party cannot be sustained when the assessee was denied cross-examination. The ruling treats such action as a violation of natural justice.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding corpus donations to annual receipts to deny exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Recognizing such donations as capital receipts, the Tribunal restored the tax exemption.
Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
Relying on CBDT instructions and precedent, the Tribunal ruled that approval for reopening must come from the CCIT. Approval by PCIT rendered the notice and assessment unsustainable.
