ITAT Mumbai condoned a 524-day delay in filing an appeal after finding that the assessee remained unaware of the assessment order due to communications being routed through his tax consultant. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
Allahabad High Court held that share capital additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on doubts about the investor’s source of funds. In the absence of evidence showing that the money originated from the assessee and was routed back, the addition was unsustainable.
ITAT remanded the issue of applying DTAA rates to dividends paid to non-resident shareholders because crucial documents such as TRCs and related records were not available on record.
ITAT Pune held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 falls under Section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax. The Tribunal directed reassessment of tax liability and grant of refunds after verification.
Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial shareholder. The Revenues appeal was dismissed following binding judicial precedents.
The Delhi High Court held that the period granted to an assessee for filing a reply under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while calculating limitation under Section 149. Since the Assessing Officer acted within the permissible period, the reassessment proceedings were upheld.
ITAT Bangalore held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the sale deed was registered after two years. Substantial investment and acquisition of rights in the property within the prescribed period were considered sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital losses can be carried forward even when long-term capital gains are exempt under the India–Mauritius DTAA. Exempt gains do not enter the computation of total income and therefore cannot absorb the losses.
The Surat ITAT held that for assessment years prior to AY 2013-14, the DVO had no authority under Section 55A to reduce the fair market value adopted by an assessee based on a registered valuer’s report. The resulting LTCG addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that business promotion, petrol, and travel expenses cannot be disallowed merely on assumptions of possible personal use. In the absence of specific defects or evidence, ad hoc disallowance under Section 37(1) was deleted.
