The Tribunal held that section 50 merely prescribes a special method for computing gains on depreciable assets and does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Consequently, long-term capital losses were permitted to be set off against such gains under section 74.
The Tribunal emphasized that detailed quantitative reconciliation and accepted export realizations carried substantial evidentiary value in the diamond trade. In the absence of discrepancies in stock records or sales, the alleged bogus purchase addition was deleted in full.
The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investment was made during the assessment year in question. Documentary evidence showing the transaction belonged to an earlier year remained uncontroverted.
ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effect order was invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
The Tribunal ruled that vague information and an excel sheet prepared by the Investigation Wing could not satisfy the statutory requirement of reason to believe under Section 147. It emphasized that reassessment powers cannot be exercised on mere suspicion. The notice issued under Section 148 was therefore quashed.
ITAT Mumbai noted that the excel sheets relied upon by the Revenue had not been established in accordance with legal requirements governing electronic evidence. Since the material lacked evidentiary support, the addition for Alleged On-Money Payment could not survive.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition based solely on a builder’s statement could not survive without evidence directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. The ₹4 lakh addition was deleted for lack of corroboration.
ITAT Mumbai held that distribution fees paid to associated enterprises could not be treated as royalty. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions and directed fresh transfer pricing analysis based on proper comparables.
