The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80P on bank interest cannot be re-examined once earlier order attained finality. The issue was restricted to allowing related expenses under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that delayed verification of an e-filed return is only a procedural lapse. Deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied when the return was filed within the due date.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest provision only increases business income, which remains eligible for Section 80P deduction. Hence, the addition was treated as tax-neutral and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
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.
