The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
The Tribunal held that AO’s ad-hoc disallowances were unsustainable as he failed to verify evidence. CIT(A) examined detailed ledgers and explanations, deleting unsupported additions. The appeal highlights the importance of evidence-based assessments over arbitrary estimates.
ITAT Agra held that reassessment under Section 144 by JAO is valid even though faceless procedure under Section 144B was generally applicable. The CBDT Circular of 17.03.2022 provided relaxation for cases with expiring limitation. CIT(A)’s non-est finding was set aside, ensuring compliance with procedural exceptions.
ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Section 56(2)(vii). The case was remanded to AO for de novo verification, allowing the assessee to file further supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish any bogus purchase or sale since the assessee never handled the goods and only received net surplus. Identical findings in earlier years compelled the ITAT to delete the same addition again. The takeaway is that established business patterns cannot be arbitrarily recharacterized as accommodation entries.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence such as partnership deeds, royalty ledgers, and source-wise cash deposit mapping. Since AO never verified these materials, the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained. The issue was restored for proper factual examination.
Delhi High Court ruled that prosecution under Income Tax Act Sections 276C and 278E can proceed when evaded tax exceeds Rs.25 crores, even if appeals are pending, confirming proper authority delegation.
The Tribunal ruled that when no new loans are borrowed or granted, taxpayers need not re-prove nexus annually. Interest paid deduction under section 57(iii) was restored.
The ITAT ruled that property sold by a discontinued partnership must be taxed in the firm’s hands, not its former partners, emphasizing correct ownership for capital gains assessment.
