The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
PCIT s revision under section 263 against assessee was upheld holding that AO did not properly verify the very low Section 14A disallowance despite huge exempt income and also ignored INSIGHT portal inputs about alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal restored the matter after finding that the appellate authority failed to decide the assessees grounds on merits. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all documents.
The Tribunal held that advance tax cannot be treated as delayed when the amount is debited from the taxpayer’s bank account on the due date. Interest under Section 234C was quashed as the delay in challan generation was beyond the assessee’s control.
The ruling clarified that increased expenditure in one year, by itself, does not permit partial disallowance. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate lack of business purpose or genuineness.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
The ITAT held that reopening an assessment after four years without any new tangible material is invalid. A reassessment based merely on re-examining earlier facts was struck down as a change of opinion.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
The case examined whether delayed filing of Form 10AB could be condoned after statutory amendments. The Tribunal held that post-October 2024 law empowers authorities to condone delay on reasonable cause and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that protective additions under Sections 68 and 69C cannot survive once substantive additions are confirmed in the hands of beneficiaries. The ruling prevents double taxation of the same income and limits misuse of protective assessments.
