ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of interest expenditure, emphasizing that as long as there is a nexus between the borrowing and the income earned, deduction cannot be denied. Disallowance based on investment in shares was found unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
ITAT Chennai upheld that immovable property transfers within family through registered settlement deeds are exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The AO’s view that such transfers were non-bona-fide was rejected.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
Tribunal held that Section 69A covers unexplained money, not loans recorded in books. As all 14 lenders confirmed transactions with evidence, ₹1.86 crore addition was deleted.
The ITAT Bangalore confirmed that an initial order’s failure to consider a binding High Court ruling on bad debt deductibility constitutes a mistake apparent from record. This allowed the bank to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for non-rural bad debts via rectification, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The key takeaway is that disregarding settled jurisdictional law is a rectifiable error, not a debatable issue.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance of interest expense after the real estate firm successfully proved that the mutual fund investment in question was made using interest-free own funds, not borrowed capital. The ruling emphasizes that disallowance requires evidence of borrowed funds being diverted for non-business purposes.
The Tribunal held that income declared under Sections 44AE and 44AD by a transport HUF owning 10 trucks was valid. Additions for alleged profit diversion were deleted as the AO’s suspicion of tax evasion lacked evidence.
The ITAT deleted the entire addition made under Section 69A concerning demonetisation cash deposits, ruling in favor of a retired government employee. The Tribunal held that deposits from verifiable sources like gratuity, leave encashment, salary arrears, and loan repayment were genuinely explained and not unexplained income.
