The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The Tribunal held that deciding an appeal on merits without granting an effective hearing breaches section 250(2) and natural justice. Repeated adjournments alone cannot justify ex-parte disposal, especially in search-based estimation cases.
Revenue argued no separate satisfaction was needed as the searched and other person had the same AO. ITAT rejected this, holding that since AOs were different on the date of satisfaction, the defect was fatal.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when sanction under section 151 was taken from the wrong authority. The Tribunal held that approval by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDG is a fatal jurisdictional defect, invalidating the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening beyond three years is without jurisdiction.
Revenue treated the ARC’s discounted purchase of debt as a benefit to the borrower. ITAT ruled that assignment at a discount does not reduce the borrower’s obligation and, absent remission or prior allowance, no income arises under section 41(1).
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
Protective addition was sustained despite completion of substantive assessment. ITAT clarified that protective assessment cannot survive after ownership and taxability are conclusively determined.
The assessee produced full details of the share subscriber, including financials and bank statements. ITAT held that after primary onus is discharged, the burden shifts to the Department, which was not met.
The case examined whether exchange data alone could justify taxing alleged commodity profits. The Tribunal ruled that once the broker admits wrong PAN mapping and identifies the real trader, the addition cannot survive.
