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.
ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1.21 crore in subcontract expenses because the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to substantiate the payments, especially those linked to a director’s relative. The Tribunal upheld the AO’s finding that the genuineness of the expenditure was not satisfactorily proved.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.1.02 crore addition made under Section 68, rejecting the AO’s claim that a loan was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal ruled the loan was a genuine business transaction, used specifically for repaying an existing business loan, establishing the required nexus and purpose.
ITAT Chennai granted relief, holding that reversal of a provision for liquidated damages, which was disallowed and subsequently taxed under VSV Scheme in earlier years, cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). This prevents double taxation.
ITAT Delhi directed the AO to compute Annual Letting Value (ALV) only for the portion of the house property actually rented out (third/fourth floors). Taxing the entire property based on assumptions, ignoring the owner’s self-occupation, was held to be unjustified.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening for AY 2015-16, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling. The Tribunal held that the benefit of the extended limitation under TOLA was unavailable after 01.04.2021 for this assessment year.
