The Tribunal ruled that entries found in a third-party pen drive cannot justify addition without independent corroboration. Failure to allow cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, leading to deletion.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for Section 54 is possession of the new residential house, not the agreement date. Since possession was taken within two years of sale, exemption was allowed.
ITAT deleted ₹60 lakh addition as the Revenue relied solely on a third-party confession without independent verification. Documentary evidence such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements discharged the assessee’s onus.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
Emphasizing judicial consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeal on referral fees and reimbursements. Identical issues decided in earlier years were followed, leading to deletion of all additions.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where tax is ultimately levied under Section 115JB. Additions under normal provisions did not result in tax evasion.
The Tribunal deleted ₹2 lakh cash addition as no incriminating material directly linked the assessee to alleged on-money. Reliance solely on pen drive data and third-party statements without cross-examination was held insufficient.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
ITAT ruled that mere endorsement stating “Yes, I am satisfied” does not constitute valid sanction under Section 151. Mechanical approval without independent application of mind invalidated the reassessment.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹13.32 lakh penalty u/s 270A, holding bona fide exemption claim by charitable trust not misreporting; 200% penalty unsustainable.
