The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued on 25.07.2022 were time-barred since the Revenue had only one surviving day left under the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal limitation formula.
The ITAT held that mere disclosure of undisclosed income during search is insufficient for immunity under Section 271AAA unless the assessee substantiates the manner in which such income was derived.
The ITAT held that CSR expenditure disallowed as business expenditure under Section 37(1) can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. Revision under Section 263 was accordingly quashed.
The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 or 69A. The Tribunal observed that mere electronic entries amount to dumb documents unless independently verified.
The ITAT ruled that accepted sales necessarily imply corresponding purchases, even if sourced through the grey market. The addition was therefore restricted to estimated profit instead of the full purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly aggregated actual property value and stamp duty valuation of the same transaction to invoke extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b). The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was declared time-barred and without jurisdiction.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases can be made where the assessee has already disclosed a higher gross profit on disputed transactions. The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court rulings limiting additions only to differential GP.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the CIT(A) order after finding that crucial survey findings and Tally data relating to accommodation entries were not properly examined. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh examination of the transactions and related evidence.
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. It rejected the reliance on registration date alone. The ruling clarifies timing criteria for capital gains exemption.
