The Tribunal ruled that setting aside a best-judgment assessment after admitting additional evidence and remand findings is unjustified. CIT(A) must decide the case conclusively instead of granting a fresh lease to the AO.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued years after the assessee’s death is a legal nullity. Such proceedings are void even if the department was not informed about the death.
Applying settled law, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed after expiry of the limitation period are void. Both loan and repayment penalties were deleted across multiple years.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions cannot be sustained merely due to Form 26AS mismatches. The Assessing Officer must verify whether income was already taxed to avoid double taxation.
Mumbai ITAT held that unexplained bank credits are fully taxable under Section 68 when beneficiaries of accommodation entries are not identified. Mere claim of acting as an entry operator does not limit addition to commission income.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction, without inquiry or verification by the AO, is unsustainable. Independent application of mind is mandatory under the new regime.
ITAT Mumbai held that a block of assets does not cease if a new asset is added before 31 March. Consequently, no short-term capital gain under Section 50 can be levied.
The Tribunal confirmed that once goods are shown to be sold, purchases cannot be treated as wholly fictitious. A limited addition to cover possible inflation was held justified.
Despite large additions for alleged unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment itself. It reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without proper and reasoned approval.
The Tribunal held that deletion of long-term capital gains without examining original partnership records was premature. The matter was remanded for fresh verification of facts and documents.
