ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition under Section 69 cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated loose sheet. The Tribunal ruled that independent evidence is necessary to establish alleged on-money payments.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 does not justify denial of Foreign Tax Credit where taxes have been paid in the foreign jurisdiction. It ruled that the procedural delay cannot override the substantive benefit available under the DTAA.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that filing a return of income before completion of assessment is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal upheld denial of the deduction where the return was filed only after the assessment.
The ITAT held that proceeds from the sale of ancestral immovable property are taxable under the head Capital Gains” and not Income from Other Sources. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation after considering the assessee’s documents.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50C(2) before adopting the stamp duty value. The matter was remanded for obtaining the DVO’s valuation report and fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that a public charitable trust could not be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate under Section 167B. It directed taxation at normal rates and held that no tax was payable as the income was below the basic exemption limit.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained merely because they were made in old denomination notes during demonetisation. The Tribunal remanded the matter to verify whether the deposits represented genuine business sales.
The Gujarat High Court directed release of the petitioner’s attached bank accounts after the State admitted that no findings under Form DRC-18 had been recorded. The Court, however, allowed the authorities to pursue recovery from the company or its responsible directors in accordance with law.
The ITAT Pune held that compensation received under an Early Retirement Scheme could not be taxed as profits in lieu of salary under Section 17(3)(i). Following earlier judicial precedents, it directed deletion of the addition.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A were invalid because the Assessing Officer did not specify the applicable statutory charge under the provision. It ruled that such omission violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the penalty.
