The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT. The ruling reiterates that the 2023 amendment to Section 151 cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that receipts on surrender of tenancy rights were capital in nature and not taxable under section 56(2)(x). It ruled that such receipts qualify for capital gains treatment and related exemptions.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if no fresh material emerges. Key takeaway: AO cannot reopen concluded assessments on pre-existing facts.
Tribunal held that additions for excess gold stock under Section 69A could not stand when purchases, job-work gold, and export stock were fully supported by invoices, confirmations, and bank records. The ruling emphasizes that reconciled and verified records override survey-time assumptions.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully supported by stock records and sales invoices, proving they were genuine business receipts. It ruled that Section 68 cannot apply to recorded turnover already taxed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
ITAT Mumbai held that donations to registered trusts cannot be taxed under Section 69C solely based on third-party statements without supporting evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee proved repayment of ₹1 crore via banking channels, Revenue must first disprove the evidence before invoking sections 68 or 69C. Both the addition and related interest disallowance of ₹3.78 lakh were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
