ITAT Mumbai has deleted a Rs. 2.5 crore tax addition, ruling that Section 68 of Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loan balances carried forward from a previous year. ITAT found reopening and subsequent tax demand to be unjustified, as transaction’s genuineness was already established in a past assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Education Trust, holding that payments to foreign institutions for educational activities in India, a community preference clause, and a broad range of related educational activities do not violate Sections 11 or 13 of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of a church trust, holding that a 29-day procedural delay in filing Form 10B should not result in the denial of a tax exemption under Section 11. The tribunal emphasized that substantive law should prevail over procedural lapses, especially when the jurisdictional High Court has already condoned the delay.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam allowed a trust’s appeal, restoring its Section 11 exemption. The sale of property to a trustee at market value was not a violation of Section 13, as no undue benefit was conferred.
The Bombay High Court ruled on a hospital’s TDS obligations for consultant doctors and equipment maintenance contracts, upholding the professional status of doctors while remanding the AMC issue.
The ITAT quashed a reassessment and deleted ₹13 crore in additions, ruling that the initial notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was time-barred.
The ITAT Vizag partly allowed a nursery operator’s appeal, accepting a government-certified income of ₹1 lakh per acre over the AO’s arbitrary estimate. The ruling confirms that nursery income differs from regular agricultural income.
ITAT in Mumbai quashed a tax assessment reopening, ruling it was based on a change of opinion without new material. The tribunal also deleted a Rs. 8.46 crore addition of notional interest, affirming that hypothetical income cannot be taxed.
The ITAT Kolkata has ruled that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made on share capital received from group companies when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, even if the directors of the investing companies do not appear in person.
The ITAT ruled that a CIT(A) must independently verify evidence before deleting a tax addition, even if the AO fails to provide a remand report.
