The Tribunal held that deduction of tax under Section 194J cannot automatically classify receipts as professional income. Tax authorities must independently examine the nature of services before denying the benefit of Section 44AD. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-17. The Court emphasized that the amendment expressly took effect from 01.04.2017 and operates prospectively.
The Tribunal held that reliance on third-party statements without granting effective cross-examination amounted to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the addition based on such statements could not survive.
The ITAT held that a transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) is invalid if the assessee is not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As a result, notices issued by the transferee officers lacked legal validity and the assessment was quashed.
ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
The ITAT held that mere working sheets showing interest calculations do not establish taxable income. The Revenue must prove actual accrual or receipt of interest before making an addition.
