The tribunal ruled that section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner believes further enquiry was possible. Unless the order is unsustainable in law, revision on alleged inadequate enquiry is impermissible.
Rejecting a summary denial of deductions, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify whether mortgage repayments and other costs were wholly connected with the transfer. Taxpayers were directed to cooperate and file complete evidence.
The issue was whether foreign bank balances funded through LRS could be taxed as unexplained credits. ITAT held that once the source and opening balance are established, section 68 cannot be invoked merely on peak-credit theory.
The issue was whether unsecured loan additions under section 68 could survive based solely on investigation reports and third-party statements. ITAT held that without independent enquiry and nexus to seized material, such additions are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when exempt dividend arises incidentally from shares held as stock-in-trade in banking business. Applying Supreme Court precedents, it deleted the entire sustained disallowance, reaffirming that such income does not trigger Section 14A.
ITAT ruled that an allotment letter constitutes a valid agreement for section 56(2)(x) where consideration and binding terms are recorded. Stamp duty value on the allotment date, not the delayed registration date, must be applied.
ITAT remanded a ₹2.90 crore s.54F deduction case, allowing the assessee to furnish complete documentation and have the claim re-examined on merit.
The Tribunal ruled that a statutory appellate authority cannot pass an ex-parte order after ignoring materials demonstrably available on record. The matter was restored for fresh consideration on all grounds.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that revision is impermissible when the Assessing Officer adopts a reasonable view after due enquiry. Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers another line of investigation.
The Tribunal clarified that granting limited broadcast rights without rights to modify or exploit content does not constitute royalty income. The ruling underscores the distinction between copyright transfer and mere broadcast reproduction rights.
