Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delivery-based share transactions shown as investments in books could not be treated as business income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld capital gains treatment for both STCG and LTCG.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory reserve fund deposits and co-operative bank accounts qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. It observed that temporarily parking surplus funds does not amount to carrying on a separate investment activity.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra payment. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of on-money beyond the registered sale deed value.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not alter book profit under Section 115JB by disallowing losses from alleged penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that such adjustment was not permitted under the statutory explanations to Section 115JB.
Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rather than 2% of turnover. The order emphasised consistency in estimation across assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned a 60-day delay after accepting explanations relating to migration of the ITAT portal and the death of a family member. The registration dispute was thereafter heard on merits.
The Tribunal held that leasehold rights transferred with land and building fall within the ambit of Section 50C. The matter relating to reassessment validity was sent back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that Form 3CL issued by DSIR could not be treated as additional evidence during rectification proceedings since it had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue for fresh quantification of deduction under Section 35(2AB).
