Rajkot ITAT deleted an addition of ₹94.81 lakh, holding that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act is accretion to compensation, not interest taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). Since acquired land was rural agricultural land (not a capital asset), compensation, including Section 28 interest, is wholly exempt from tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that when sales and stock figures are accepted, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Only the profit element at 3% is taxable, following consistent judicial precedent.
The tax addition on ₹17.63 lakh demonetization cash deposits was challenged as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and savings. The ITAT deleted the addition, emphasizing that prior, undisputed withdrawals cannot be taxed as unexplained money unless the tax authority proves alternate use. The key takeaway upholds the principle that redeposit of existing capital is not income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.75 crore in cash deposits were explained as redeposits from earlier withdrawals, deleting additions made under Section 69A since no evidence showed alternate use of the cash.
Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Deemed Rent on 5 Flats – Accepts Genuine Vacancy Claim but Upholds Addition on Office Property Assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring income of ₹10.60 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large capital gain deductions claimed u/s 54, 54B, 54EC, 54EE, […]
ITAT Delhi ruled that a reassessment notice served under Section 148 on a foreign FPI (Singapore company) after its formal dissolution is void ab initio. This decision confirms that proceedings against a non-existent entity, even if served shortly after winding up, are invalid and cannot be cured by Section 292B.
ITAT condoned a significant seven-year delay in filing an appeal, recognizing assessee’s status as an NRI and his lack of awareness of assessment order as a bona fide cause. This ruling affirms the liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld annulment of a ₹1.73 crore assessment, ruling that Section 148 notice was issued in name of a person who had died four years earlier. Tribunal affirmed that proceedings against a deceased person are a fatal jurisdictional defect and void ab initio.
Tribunal condoned a 545-day delay caused by consultant negligence and remanded case to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, holding that assessee deserved a fair hearing on disallowance of deduction under Section 35(1)(ii).
The ITAT Ahmedabad reversed the CIT(A)’s deletion, upholding the addition of ₹6.73 lakh under Section 69A for bogus Long-Term Capital Gain from Safal Herbs Ltd. shares. The Tribunal ruled that the sudden investment in the obscure scrip, coupled with an unreasonable price rise, defied commercial logic and was an accommodation entry.
