The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after the High Court upheld that revision under Section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry.
ITAT held PCIT cannot revise assessment where penny stock LTCG transactions were fully examined and AO adopted a permissible view.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order taxing Rs. 10 lakh received from HUF, emphasizing verification of the gift and HUF status before determining taxability under section 56(2)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalised for mistakes of his CA and condoned a two-year delay. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment, reaffirming natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
The Tribunal held that reassessment could not stand because the recorded reasons pertained to a different assessment year. The reopening was invalid, and all related additions were rendered infructuous.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash reflected in 26AS represents pass-through freight receipts, not actual turnover. Commission income below the audit threshold, hence tax audit under section 44AB was not required and penalty u/s 271B deleted.
ITAT partly allowed appeal against additions under section 144, applying 6% net profit instead of AO’s 8% on total cash deposits. Returned income under section 44AD was deducted, and normal tax rates applied instead of section 115BBE.
