Tribunal quashed penalty where AO’s addition for alleged bogus purchases was purely estimated, emphasizing that penalties require concrete evidence of income concealment.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted and basic supporting documents exist, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld a 6% GP addition and rejected the Revenue’s demand for 100% disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that transaction of sale of shares is not business income since assessee was never involved in the business affairs of the company. Further, consideration is treated as capital gain inspite of non-compete fee since no specific amount assigned towards non-compete fee in share purchase agreement.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Bombay ITAT allowed a 363-day delay in filing appeals caused by misdirected emails, emphasizing liberal interpretation of sufficient cause and procedural fairness. Appeals were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that a 93-day delay caused by a tax professional’s mistaken assumption that the quantum appeal was already filed constituted a bona fide error. With no malafide intent shown, the delay was condoned, and both ex parte orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty value must be taken as on the year of agreement when part consideration is paid through banking channels. Since the buyer paid in 2011 and received allotment in 2012, adopting 2017 stamp value was invalid. The ruling reaffirms strict application of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Tribunal found that the assessee’s net worth was substantially higher than the value of its investments, creating a presumption that investments were made from own funds. As no interest expenditure was linked to exempt income, the AO’s disallowance under Section 14A was held unsustainable.
ITAT held that the AO cannot rely only on loss-making trades while ignoring profitable ones, upholding deletion of additions made under Project Falcon.
