ITAT Hyderabad rules that gross sale proceeds of capital assets cannot be treated as taxable income without allowing cost of acquisition. Tribunal orders reassessment to compute correct capital gains, despite assessee’s non-compliance.
ITAT held that an appeal delayed by almost six years must not be dismissed outright without examining genuine hardships. Medical evidence of the assessee’s child justified potential condonation of delay. The case highlights the balance between limitation and natural justice.
ITAT held that sending hearing notices to a wrong email ID violated natural justice. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices must be issued through NFAC under the 2022 Faceless Scheme. A JAO-issued notice violates the mandatory procedure and stands invalid.
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to give a reasoned order on land ownership and capital-asset status. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication and proper hearing.
The ITAT held that a provisional addition under Section 56(2)(x) cannot be finalized without a Departmental Valuation Officer’s report. The case was remitted to the AO for proper valuation and reassessment.
The Tribunal emphasized that even pending SLPs cannot override the statutory 10-year limitation for assessments. Revenue’s attempt to reopen AY 2010-11 under Section 153A was rejected, upholding the CIT(A)’s quashing of the order.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 13A does not automatically relieve the payer from deducting TDS on interest paid to political parties. It found the earlier High Court ruling relied upon by CIT(A) to be distinguishable. The matter was remitted to the AO to test compliance with the first proviso to Section 201.
ITAT Hyderabad held that verifying documents of only one party cannot substitute verification of all transactions under Section 69C. The matter is remanded to the AO for de novo scrutiny of purchase bills, ledger accounts, transportation memos, and payment proofs for all thirteen parties.
