The Tribunal held that shifting a disclosed loss from business to speculation does not amount to under-reporting when the quantum of loss is fully accepted. Since the tax liability remained Nil and no suppression was alleged, section 270A could not be invoked. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
The Tribunal ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
The Tribunal recalled its prior order on US$ 32,13,307.60 credited in an offshore account, acknowledging documented proof of investment maturity. Explained sources prevent its inclusion as undisclosed assets.
The Tribunal held that unverified WhatsApp chats without Section 65B certification cannot justify additions under Section 69A. Key takeaway: digital messages must be authenticated and corroborated before being used against taxpayers.
The Tribunal dismissed Revenue appeals for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 as the corporate debtor is under CIRP. Section 14(1) moratorium bars all proceedings, ensuring compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The ITAT ruled that additions under Section 69 based solely on third-party statements and unverified documents cannot stand. Key takeaway: credible, corroborated evidence is essential for tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that section 115JB is not applicable to banks constituted as ‘corresponding new banks’ under the Banking Companies Act. As a result, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of bad debts became unsustainable. The ruling clarifies that MAT provisions cannot be applied where the statutory scope excludes the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening notices and assessment orders under section 148 issued in the PAN of a deceased person are invalid. The ruling reinforces that reassessment proceedings require notices to be addressed to the correct taxpayer to maintain legal jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 50 does not convert a long-term capital asset to a short-term capital asset, then the rate of tax is applicable for the transfer of a long-term capital asset has to be in accordance with section 112. The deeming fiction of section 50 cannot be imported under section 112.
Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54 depends on amount actually invested in a new property and not on ownership proportion. Assessing Officer’s restriction to 50% due to joint ownership was set aside, confirming relief for assessee.
