ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that documented share transactions through recognised exchanges cannot be treated as bogus without contrary proof. General investigation reports and suspicion were held insufficient to sustain additions.
Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same survey material which was already accepted by AO in earlier proceedings is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that operational suspension and status quo directions do not permit nil valuation of stock. Proper valuation is mandatory under the mercantile system.
The ITAT held that once an assessee’s premises are searched, proceedings must be under Section 153A. Invoking Section 153C in such cases is a jurisdictional error.
The tribunal held that internal brand, communication, and technology support under a shared services framework does not involve transfer of copyright or know-how. As a result, such payments are not royalty and attract no TDS under section 195.
The ITAT held that a technical error in selecting an incorrect clause of section 12A(1)(ac) cannot justify rejection of registration. Where activities are genuine, authorities must allow rectification and decide the case on merits.
The tribunal ruled that buying property through a court-supervised auction does not shield a transaction from benami law. Where the lender’s creditworthiness and real source of funds are unproven, provisional attachment is valid.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment beyond three years was valid when the assessed escaped income was only ₹13.98 lakh. It held that failure to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold under section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
