The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Bombay ITAT allowed a 363-day delay in filing appeals caused by misdirected emails, emphasizing liberal interpretation of sufficient cause and procedural fairness. Appeals were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that a 93-day delay caused by a tax professional’s mistaken assumption that the quantum appeal was already filed constituted a bona fide error. With no malafide intent shown, the delay was condoned, and both ex parte orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty value must be taken as on the year of agreement when part consideration is paid through banking channels. Since the buyer paid in 2011 and received allotment in 2012, adopting 2017 stamp value was invalid. The ruling reaffirms strict application of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b).
ITAT Delhi held that essential house fixtures like cupboards, modular kitchen, and beds are integral to habitability and can be included in the cost of improvement. AO was directed to allow Rs. 3.50 lakh claimed in long-term capital gains computation.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices under section 148 issued to a deceased person are invalid, emphasizing that such notices cannot confer jurisdiction and proceedings are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that delivery order charges are directly connected to air-cargo transportation and fall within Article 8 of the India–UK DTAA. The ruling confirms such receipts form part of international traffic income and are not taxable in India.
Tribunal allowed assessee’s application to file additional evidence proving residential nature of the property. AO is directed to re-evaluate the claim afresh, granting opportunity for hearing and considering all relevant materials and case laws.
