ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the tax was deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it or issue Form 16. Tax authorities cannot penalize the employee for the employer’s lapses.
Tribunal deleted 10% ad-hoc disallowances on travelling and telephone expenses as the assessee produced complete vouchers and audited books. Authorities cannot impose blanket disallowances without specific inquiry.
The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
The Court held that exclusion clause 5 could not justify repudiation of the boiler explosion claim. The insurer cannot rely on post-accident discovery of latent defects to deny a valid claim under a properly issued policy.
The ITAT ruled that additions under Section 69 based solely on third-party statements and unverified documents cannot stand. Key takeaway: credible, corroborated evidence is essential for tax assessments.
The Tribunal remitted the case for fresh adjudication after observing that the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merit. Assessee was directed to furnish evidence to substantiate exemption of corpus donations under section 11(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that section 115JB is not applicable to banks constituted as ‘corresponding new banks’ under the Banking Companies Act. As a result, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of bad debts became unsustainable. The ruling clarifies that MAT provisions cannot be applied where the statutory scope excludes the assessee.
The CIT(A)’s assumption of delay was corrected, restoring the appeal for adjudication. The ruling reinforces that statutory timelines are calculated from actual notice, ensuring fairness in tax appeals.
