Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that payment for cement shortage during transport arose from contractual obligation and was compensatory in nature. As no statutory violation was established, deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years was invalid since the alleged escaped income, after considering bank loan evidence, was below ₹50 lakh. The notice under section 148 and final assessment were quashed as time-barred.
Arulcheyal Kainkarrya Sabha Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Chennai) The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, arose from the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Chennai, rejecting the assessee trust’s applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is […]
ITAT Mumbai held that fair valuation loss on principal-protected debentures linked to NIFTY Index is not a contingent liability. The loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier did not file an income tax return. Verified GST filings and inventory records established transaction genuineness.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
