ITAT clarified that absence of ownership transfer at the end of the lease period makes it an operating lease, rejecting Assessing Officer’s treatment of transaction as a financial lease.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Rs.10.25 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement that was subsequently retracted, citing coercion. The court found the loans were genuine, routed through banking channels, supported by evidence, and later repaid with TDS deducted interest.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition of Rs.1.74 crore, ruling that corpus donations received by a registered charitable trust with specific written directions (for a “building fund”) are exempt under Section 11(1)(d). The ruling confirms that the exemption applies regardless of whether charitable activities were carried out in the same year.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
The ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a primary cooperative credit society, holding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mavilayi confirms that these societies are not excluded by Section 80P(4). The Tribunal confirmed the society’s income was derived solely from transactions with its members.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition of Rs.1.67 crore, holding that loans proven to be repaid through banking channels with TDS deducted on interest cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entries.1 The ruling emphasizes that additions based solely on a retracted survey statement lack evidentiary value, especially without corroborating material.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside an ex parte assessment and appellate order, restoring the case to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.1 The Tribunal granted this final opportunity on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.50,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the Section 68 addition of Rs.28.14 lakh made on cash deposits during demonetization, ruling that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the detailed documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The case was remanded for a fresh, de novo consideration after verifying all sales documents and cash flow.
