Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source of funds is explained. Mere Client Code Modification information, without supporting evidence of tax evasion, is insufficient for making additions.
The Tribunal ruled that proportionate interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained when the assessee has adequate reserves and interest-free funds to cover the advances. The Revenue failed to rebut the presumption recognized by higher courts.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from surplus funds deposited with banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Prudent deployment of business funds does not alter the nature of the income.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 revision was valid where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries into suspected bogus purchases. The ruling emphasizes that inadequate verification can render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
ITAT Pune held that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied merely because Form 67 was filed after the prescribed due date. The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and cannot override the substantive right to FTC under the DTAA.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 does not permit the PCIT to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer when two legally sustainable views exist. A revision based solely on a different interpretation of taxability is unsustainable.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that investment in rights relating to a specific residential flat under a redevelopment project qualifies for Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that beneficial provisions should receive a liberal interpretation when substantial compliance is established.
Mumbai ITAT held that payments from accumulated income to institutions registered under Section 12AA attracted Section 11(3)(d). The Tribunal ruled that rectification under Section 154 was valid as the omission was a mistake apparent from the record.
Mumbai ITAT held that the Revenue could not attribute the entire execution revenue from cross-border deals to the Indian PE without adequate evidence. The Tribunal upheld revenue sharing based on actual functions performed by overseas offices.
