ITAT deleted addition made by AO by applying Percentage Completion Method (POCM) as against Project Completion Method (PCM) method consistently followed by Assessee; In relevant year, assessee had recognized revenue of 56 units at Rs. 23.01 Cr and the remaining units were sold in subsequent AYs where the year-wise revenue was recognized and due taxes were paid; Since project inception, assessee had recognized the revenue as per PCM and the AO cannot change the method to POCM randomly and bring to tax the income which was already offered for tax in earlier years or in subsequent AYs.

HC quashed assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B against PWC, holding that granting merely two days to respond to show cause notice under Section 144B(6) without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice; Assessment order was passed in undue haste at the far end of limitation, reducing the opportunity of hearing to a ritualistic formality: Reliance placed on SC ruling in SC judgment in Whirlpool Corporation and Harbanslal Sahnia; Matter remitted back to AO for de novo adjudication.

Karnataka HC upheld ITAT order sustaining addition of Rs. 1.50 Cr u/s 69 towards unexplained investment, holding that the Assessee's categorical admission under Section 132(4) regarding undisclosed investment constituted substantive evidence; Mere filing of an ITR does not amount to retraction and that a valid retraction must be made at the earliest opportunity, supported by an affidavit, cogent evidence, or proof of coercion or duress; Noting that the alleged retraction was made after about one-and-a-half years and was unsupported by credible evidence, HC concurs with the ITAT that sufficient material existed to corroborate the admission and refuses to interfere with the addition.

HC upheld assessment order passed without issuance of draft assessment under Section 144B holding that the same is mandatory only for an 'eligible assessee' namely cases involving transfer pricing variation or certain non-residents under Section 144C, not ordinary Assessee; Statutory requirement held to be satisfied a show cause notice clearly indicating proposed variations was issued and an opportunity to respond was granted; Further, HC held the order as not time-barred since by virtue of Finance Act, 2022, the time limit for AY 2020-21 was extended up to 30/09/2022, and the order was passed on 28/09/2022.

Ahmedabad ITAT deleted additions based solely on WhatsApp chats, holding that uncorroborated electronic communication cannot constitute conclusive evidence of undisclosed income; The Tribunal observed that the message stating "50 lakhs given to Manan yesterday" nowhere indicates a cash payment and, therefore, the Revenue was unjustified in presuming an unaccounted cash outflow; Noting that the assessee had explained the transaction as a cheque payment and furnished the ledger account, PAN and address of Shri Manan and so the burden had shifted to the AO to conduct further enquiry; Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence.

Mumbai ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held that penalty under Section 271AA was unsustainable as the assessee had established a reasonable cause for not reporting the international transaction in Form 3CEB; Revenue failed to establish any nexus between the sale of raw materials and the assessee's Project Office/ PE in India; Further, no addition was made to the returned income, no profits were attributed to the PE, and the transaction had been accepted at Arm's Length Price in the hands of the Indian AE; These facts supported the assessee's bona fide belief that the transaction was not taxable in India under the Act or the India-Korea DTAA; Separately, ITAT held that the CIT(A) had exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the penalty to cover guarantee fees and trade affairs services, which were never the subject matter of the AO's penalty proceedings.

ITAT upheld deleting of disallowance of discount on issue of NCDs, holding that such discount is revenue expenditure allowable in the year of issue where Assessee opts to claim it fully; Ordinarily, revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year, and Revenue cannot compel Assessee to spread the expenditure over number of years, when already incurred; Accounting treatment in books is not determinative of tax allowability and deduction must be tested strictly under the provisions of the Act; No statutory provision mandated amortisation of such expenditure and AO was not justified in spreading the deduction over the life of the debentures.

ITAT held that the assessee, a primary agricultural credit co-operative society was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest earned on deposits with scheduled and co-operative banks; Following the Karnataka HC ruling in Tumkur Merchants, Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus business funds temporarily parked with banks remained attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and was not assessable as "income from other sources"; ITAT distinguished Totgars Co-operative ruling observing that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), not Section 80P(2)(d); ITAT deleted the disallowance of provision for interest and expenses, holding that it was based on mere surmises despite the assessee consistently following the mercantile system.

ITAT held that assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54F since it had substantially complied with all the statutory conditions by acquiring rights in a specifically identified under-construction residential flat and paying the entire consideration including amount deposited with Bombay High Court; Denial of possession owing to the builder's default, despite the High Court restraining alienation of the allotted flat, could not defeat the exemption since the delay was beyond the assessee's control; W.r.t. amount deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme, the Tribunal held that its subsequent deposit with the High Court pursuant to judicial directions constituted valid utilization.

ITAT upheld the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54, holding that exemption could not be denied merely because the new residential property was under construction, possession had not been handed over, or the purchase agreement was unregistered; The Tribunal observed that the assessee had invested the entire long-term capital gain within the prescribed period, and acquired enforceable rights through allotment letters; Relying on CBDT Circular No. 471 (1986) and the co-ordinate bench decision in Sunder Kaur Sujan, it held that booking an under-construction property amounts to construction of a residential house for the purposes of Section 54; Since the delay was attributable to the builder, as evidenced by RERA proceedings, assessee's exemption could not be denied.

ITAT quashed reassessment proceedings u/s 147 noting that no evidence of 'issuance' of notice was placed on record by the Revenue; "issuance" of notice is complete when the notice is dispatched and goes out of the control of the issuing authority; Section 292BB cures defects in service of notice where the Assessee has participated in proceedings without objection, but it does not cure jurisdictional defects arising from non-issuance; Notice dated 29/03/2017 was issued on the same day, but was returned back on 31/03/2017, due to incomplete address of the Assessee, and the same was re-sent to the Assessee on 07/04/2017.