ITAT Mumbai held that where reassessment is based on documents seized during a search on another person, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the co-operative housing society’s deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(d). The ruling emphasized that the claim required proper factual verification instead of outright rejection.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot survive where ledger accounts, bank statements, and lender confirmations establish genuine banking transactions. Mere suspicion arising from search information was held insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend arising from reduction of share capital qualified for exemption under Section 10(34). The decision followed earlier Bombay High Court rulings involving identical transactions and shareholders.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted additions under Section 69 after holding that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon against an assessee without allowing effective cross-examination.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice cannot be treated as valid merely because it carried an earlier date when it was actually signed and served after limitation expired. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of consultancy expenditure disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to produce cogent evidence showing that services were not rendered. The Tribunal held that suspicion and third-party allegations alone could not justify the addition.
Eempt income, which were disallowed under Section 14A could not be automatically added back to compute the book profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB without pinpointing real, actual expenditures recorded in the books of accounts by tax authorities that possess a direct nexus with the tax-free earnings.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
