DCIT Vs Revanth Challagalla (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 54F Allowed Even When Property Purchased in Sister’s Name – Subsequent Gift Validates Claim In this case, the ITAT Hyderabad upheld the allowance of deduction under Section 54F despite the property being initially registered in the name of the assessee’s sister. The assessee, an NRI, had sold villas […]
The issue was whether delay of 18 months could be rejected without proper opportunity. The ITAT held that fair hearing is essential and remanded the matter for reconsideration of delay with supporting evidence.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficient cause exists, delay must be liberally condoned to ensure justice and hearing on merits.
The issue was whether protective additions can survive when substantive additions are deleted. The ITAT held that once the substantive addition fails on merits, the protective addition based on the same material cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
The case involved estimated addition on agricultural income and dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution. ITAT held such dismissal invalid and ruled that arbitrary estimation without evidence cannot sustain.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
