ITAT held that managing multiple bank accounts justified salary expenses claimed under Section 57(iii). The ruling restores full deduction and reinforces that recurring administrative costs can be allowable against interest income.
Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Investments Accepted in Earlier Scrutiny Cannot Be Treated as Bogus u/s 68 on Sale—5% Profit Estimation by CIT(A) Deleted; The assessee and the Revenue filed twelve cross-appeals for AYs 2016-17 to 2021-22 against separate orders of CIT(A)-27, Kolkata. The central dispute arose from additions made u/s […]
ITAT held that subscription fees received by a global e-commerce platform from Indian customers are not taxable as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). Standard automated digital facilities without human intervention cannot be treated as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and India–Singapore DTAA.
Tribunal highlighted that short-term and long-term capital gains from share sales, under sections 111A and 10(38), were properly taxed, reflecting assessee’s investment intent.
ITAT Delhi permits set-off of brought forward long-term and current year short-term capital losses against long-term capital gains, overruling CPC and CIT(A).
he ITAT ruled that an automatic ₹56 lakh 14A disallowance was invalid as the AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal emphasized that generic reasoning cannot replace case-specific analysis.
ITAT Mumbai quashed ex-parte assessment based solely on AIR entries, directing AO to provide full details so assessee can respond and defend his position.
Tribunal held that an income tax demand raised due to a technical misentry in return must be rectified. Assessing officer erred by retaining 143(1) demand after scrutiny under 143(3).
The ₹8.49 lakh credited for household expenditure from husband was deleted as non-taxable. The unexplained ₹17.80 lakh in the capital account is sent back to the AO for proper verification and opportunity to furnish evidence.
ITAT found that reopening relied on wrong bank deposits, incorrect assessee details, and a mechanical sanction under section 151. The reassessment under sections 144/147 and the ₹15 lakh unexplained cash addition were deleted.
