Mumbai ITAT held that maintenance charges and other collections received exclusively from members of a co-operative society are exempt under the doctrine of mutuality. Surplus generated from such receipts does not constitute taxable income.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the entire property investment is supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that conjectures cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficient without transaction-specific evidence. The key takeaway is that direct documentary proof carries greater evidentiary value.
The key issue was whether the absence of corresponding entries in Form 26AS justified denial of TDS credit. The ITAT held that employees should not suffer adverse consequences due to the employer’s failure to comply with TDS obligations.
The Revenue treated a ₹2 crore accumulation disclosed in Form No. 10 as unaccounted income of the trust. The Tribunal ruled that procedural filings cannot substitute evidence of actual income and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal examined whether an incorrect statement of financial transactions filed by a bank could lead to reassessment and addition in the wrong person’s hands. It ruled that admitted reporting errors must be rectified and cannot form the sole basis for taxation.
The Revenue sought to tax software distribution income as royalty despite judicial precedents to the contrary. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that software sales do not automatically attract royalty taxation.
The Revenue disallowed loan repayments alleging double deduction of charitable expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence established that no double claim had been made and directed deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant year.
The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
