INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN: Section 153A and section 148/147 cannot be initiated for the search year.The Assessee can only be assessed u/s 143(3)for the search year. Read More ...

---

Ahmadabad ITAT: Where audit report in Form No. 10B was already filed and available on record, when assessee's return was processed by CPC, denial of exemption under section 11 merely on account of alleged belated filing of Form No. 10B, was not justifiable. Further the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in declining to condone the delay of 1021 days… Read More ...

---

ITAT Mumbai: For the purpose of treating an asset being office premises as a part of the 'block of assets', it is not necessary that the possession of the office premises should have been given to the assessee. Once payment is made and there is a registered agreement, the office premises acquired during the year could be… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: once the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and proof of repayment within the same year, reliance by AO/CIT(A) solely on the statement of an entry operator was unsustainable—particularly when the statement was retracted and cross examination was denied. 📂 Facts • Assessee received unsecured loans of ₹50 lakh from… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: 📌 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) unsustainable when basis of levy altered — ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty on estimated addition. ________________________________________ 📰 Compliance Bulletin Case: Amish Anantrai Modi vs DCIT [I.T.A No.6281/Mum/2025] Forum: Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai Issue: Validity of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when the foundation of addition changes ⚖️ Facts • Addition made u/s 68 on… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: • Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT while dealing with section 43 of Black Money Act in case of Sanjana Sanjay Arora (D Décor Exports, Mumbai) held that inadvertent error in disclosing the add-on account number in the return as against main account number does not attract penalty. ________________________________________ 📜 Facts • Assessee held a GBP account (No.… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: Reopening quashed as AO did not disposed objection against reopening filed by the assessee. Background: • The assessee’s original assessment (AY 2013-14) was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C in 2016, with additions for alleged bogus LTCG. • That assessment was quashed by ITAT in 2021. • Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under section… Read More ...

---

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: ⚖️ Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that when evidence of inflated purchases have been found during the search at assessee’s premises which has been extrapolated and addition has been made in all preceding years and restricted to certain % by appellate authorities then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A of the Act is not leviable on such… Read More ...

---

Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Addition for alleged “on-money” paid for purchase of jewellery solely on the basis of statement of third party and documents found in search of another person, without any incriminating material found in assessee’s search and without corroboration, is unsustainable-Assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative-Addition cannot be made merely on… Read More ...

---

Mumbai Tribunal : S. 263 : Commissioner - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable trust-Limited scrutiny-Payments to specified persons u/s. 13(3)-AO having made detailed enquiries and accepted explanation, PCIT cannot set aside assessment merely for “further verification” without himself recording how order is erroneous-Inadequate enquiry is not enough-PCIT must establish error by own enquiry-Revision quashed. [S. 12A, 13(3),… Read More ...

---