ITAT upheld CIT(A) order deleting addition made u/s 68 as unsubstantiated cash credit by holding that loan transactions undertaken by the Assessee were genuine; Onus discharged by establishing the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders; Addition was made based on statement of an employee and one person referred as mediator and entry provider, holding the said transactions as accommodation entries; As per ITAT statements of third parties recorded during the course of search which were later retracted, cannot be made the sole basis for making the additions in assessee’s hands.

ITAT held that payment received by UK based entity from its Indian associate for IT development and non-IT support services were not taxable as ‘Fees for technical services’ (FTS) sans satisfaction of ‘make available’ clause; Revenue failed to provide any evidence showing that Indian entity had become independently capable of providing IT support services; W.r.t. non-IT support services, assessee provided routine managerial and standardization only; Perusal of agreement showed that no transfer of enduring knowledge or skill was made by the Assessee.

ITAT allowed assessees appeal holding that entire Annual Letting Value (ALV) cannot be assessed as income of the Assessee given the property is partly let out and partly selfoccupied; ITAT noted that rates adopted by the AO appeared to be as per data available in the website magic bricks.com; ITAT restored the matter to the AO for making fresh assessment and assessing only the ALV of property which was let out; As per ITAT in the case of building which is subjected to levy of house tax by the local authorities, standard rent determined by the local authority to levy house tax would be the standard rent and would be considered as ALV.

ITAT ruled in favour of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, noting that the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A over and above the suo-moto disallowance was without any basis; the AO was required to record his satisfaction as to why the suo-moto disallowance made by the Assessee was unacceptable; Assessee had submitted the working as per Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D after considering only those investments from which exempt income was earned in view of the coordinate bench decision in Vireet Investments.

ITAT upheld CIT(A) order confirming addition made on account of long-term capital gains by adopting the FMV as determined by DVO; CIT(A) had observed that Stamp Duty Valuation was Rs. 2.40 Crores and on referring matter to DVO on the request of the appellant, he had got substantial relief; On nonconsideration of Section 155(15) by CIT(A), ITAT observed that assessee is misconstruing the reference to the DVO as reference made to in Sec 155(15) which is modification of value in the course of any appeal proceeding; Sec 155(15) held not to be applicable by ITAT.

Addition made u/s 153A without incriminating material seized from the Assessee’s possession and solely based on third party statement recorded u/s 132(4) held to be void ab initio; Jurisdiction u/s 153A for unabated year arises only upon delivery of incriminating material directly connected to the Assessee; Though certain loose papers and digital data were seized during the search at premises of third party, however, no document was found during the search at Assessee’s premises.

ITAT quashed assessment proceedings since notice u/s 143(2) was in contravention to the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated June 23, 2017; Impugned notice failed to specify whether it was a case of limited scrutiny, complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny; CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue; As per ITAT, burden was on the Revenue to show that for assuming jurisdiction, it had duly complied and satisfied in letter with the CBDT instruction issued.

ITAT upheld CIT(A) order deleting additions made by AO of Rs. 3.16 Cr u/s 69; As per ITAT, addition made by the AO was based more on conjectures and surmises rather than on concrete evidence; Based on screenshot of a chat between Assessee’s son and the accountant, AO alleged that market value of a shop sold by Assessee was much higher than the registered value; As per ITAT, there was no authenticity of the impugned screenshot; No investigation was made with the Registration office/Stamp Duty authorities; Unless the Source device or Certificate u/s 65B (Evidence Act) is produced, such chats cannot be relied upon.

High Court held that it was not open to legal heir to contend that the assessment proceedings were initiated after Assessee’s demise on 04/01/2024, without any notice being issued to any of the legal heir, given that there were no records indicating that after Assessee’s demise the legal heirs took steps to apprise the Revenue about such occurrence; Assessee’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities for issuance of notice u/s 148A rejected by HC; At best the legal heir can contend that they have not inherited any estate and so are not liable to such tax; HC quashed impugned orders with directions to pass a fresh order

ITAT quashed reassessment based on investigation wing report alleging nondisclosure of capital gain without independent inquiry and ignoring tangible material evidencing disclosure of capital gain by the Assessee; Capital asset received by the legal heirs after demise of original owner had not been converted into the stock by legal heirs and the assessee has shown capital gain on this income; Addition of Rs. 3.36 Cr as unexplained income u/s 69A deleted; Independent verification qua veracity of the report not done by AO.