ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Revenue sought to levy penalty despite accepting the revised income declared by the assessee. ITAT held that accepted disclosures do not automatically amount to misreporting and cannot justify penalty under Section 270A.
The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when additions are ultimately made on issues not mentioned in the recorded reasons for reopening. The AO’s jurisdiction failed because no valid addition survived on the original escapement issue.
The ITAT held that FTC cannot be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date. It ruled that the filing requirement is procedural and does not extinguish the taxpayer’s substantive right to foreign tax credit.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the valuation issue to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13. Since the statutory conditions were not met, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition based on the DVO report was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference was invalid, the long-term capital gains addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the property valuation to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13 under the unamended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference lacked legal authority, the addition to long-term capital gains could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the amended Section 55A could not be applied to a land sale completed before 01.07.2012. Since the DVO reference was not valid under the law then in force, the capital gains addition based on that valuation could not stand.
