The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory duties under Sections 250(4) and 250(6). The dismissal on delay alone was held improper, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to verify discrepancies in quantitative stock details justified revisionary action. Mere calling of documents without proper examination invites Section 263 proceedings.
ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band under property valuation provisions applies retrospectively. The PCIT’s revision was set aside as it amounted to a change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54F must be computed with reference to actual sale consideration received, not the deemed value under Section 50C. The matter was remanded for recomputation of LTCG accordingly.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed using the final stamp value determined after litigation, not an earlier inflated valuation, and directed deletion of the resulting addition.
The issue concerned taxation of alleged on-money from sale of land. The Tribunal held that once the land was agricultural and outside section 2(14), capital gains and on-money additions could not survive.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of disallowance where the tax authority failed to produce direct evidence linking the taxpayer to any refund of alleged bogus political donations.
The dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
