ITAT held that interest under Section 220(2) must be recomputed based on reduced assessed income after rectification under Section 154. However, it clarified that interest will still run from the original demand date.
Tribunal set aside addition as the assessee established genuineness of loans through documentary evidence. However, it remanded the case to verify whether loans were repaid.
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
The Tribunal clarified that possession is not a mandatory condition for claiming Section 54 exemption. It held that investment within the prescribed timeline satisfies the legal requirement.
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court rulings to hold that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies for deduction purposes. It allowed deduction on interest income under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that entire TDS credit can be allowed to one co-owner if the other has not claimed it. It remanded the matter for verification to prevent double credit.
The Tribunal held that commission income cannot be computed on internal or circular banking transactions. It reduced the commission rate from 1.75% to 0.47% and directed recomputation after verification. The ruling emphasizes accurate determination of real in-come.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are also co-operative societies for this purpose.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
