ITAT ruled that reopening assessment under Section 147 is invalid if the filed return is ignored. The case was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to substantiate claims under Section 54F.
The ITAT held that a provisional addition under Section 56(2)(x) cannot be finalized without a Departmental Valuation Officer’s report. The case was remitted to the AO for proper valuation and reassessment.
Tribunal held that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of shareholders were proven through documents filed before AO and CIT(A). Since authorities ignored valid evidence, the section 68 addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that unexplained money addition cannot stand when the AO ignores direct verification from the bank. Matter restored to the AO to summon the bank and tax only actual interest income.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that cash advances discovered during a survey must be assessed as business income, not unexplained cash credit under Section 68, making the exercise tax-neutral.
The ITAT held that the alleged bogus purchases could not stand when the assessee produced complete documentary evidence showing genuine procurement and consumption. With no contrary evidence from the AO, the 69C addition was removed.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 56(2) towards receipt of gift from HUF to be re-considered for exemption under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with specific direction.
ITAT Kolkata deletes ₹7.84 crore addition on F&O and currency-derivative losses as AO relied solely on a now-vacated SEBI interim order. Tribunal emphasized that the assessee submitted full documentary evidence, which remained unrebutted, confirming losses as genuine.
ITAT clarifies that capital gains arise on the date of JDA execution, not registration, and allows reassessment if the agreement is cancelled before possession transfer.
ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of ₹8.70 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that proper evidence and confirmations by loan creditors absolved the assessee. Arbitrary AO findings cannot justify tax.
