ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted a penalty imposed for alleged non-maintenance of accounts. It held that audited books, even if defective, do not attract penalty under Section 271A.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment issued beyond three years requires approval from the PCCIT and not the PCIT. Since sanction was obtained from an incompetent authority, the entire reassessment was held void ab initio.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could still be treated as unexplained after repayment. The Tribunal held that once repayment is recorded by the AO, the addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside a Section 69C addition where subcontract payments were backed by bills, accounts, and TDS compliance. Non-filing of return by the recipient was held insufficient to brand the expense as bogus.
The ITAT held that approval merely stating “Yes, I am satisfied” shows no application of mind. Such sanction fails the statutory requirement and invalidates reopening.
The ITAT held that loans and advances accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments cannot be doubted later without fresh incriminating material. Mere balance-sheet analysis or suspicion is insufficient.
The ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
The ITAT held that reassessment based purely on an Investigation Wing report, without the Assessing Officer forming an independent belief, is invalid. Copy-pasted reasons failed to establish a live link between material and escapement of income.
