The ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that interest on enhanced compensation for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is fully exempt from income tax, citing Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that this special law overrides the general tax provisions (Sections 56 and 145A), deleting the entire Rs.97.44 lakh addition.
This Income Tax appeal addressed whether a 5% infrastructure fee should be deducted based on gross bills or actual cash receipts. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower authorities decision, emphasizing that the expenditures deduction must strictly follow the contractual clause, which explicitly linked the 5% payment to total receipts, thereby restricting the allowable deduction.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a tax order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing Bombay HC’s Premkumar Luthra ruling, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the merits under Section 250(6).
Charitable Trust Registration Rejected on Technicality? ITAT Agra rules CIT(E) must allow rectification for wrong clause application (12A) and restore for fresh merit-based review and hearing.
Tribunal held that goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset. AO & CIT(A)’s disallowance based on colourable device allegation was quashed.
Tribunal held that write-off of ₹9.56 crore foreign investment in USA subsidiary was incurred for commercial expediency and business expansion, qualifying as business loss under the Income Tax Act.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the right to cross-examination is mandatory for any addition based on a third-party statement. Failure to grant this right nullifies the assessment order.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
