ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition in present case would be the FMV of the flats which the assessee has acquired in exchange of surrender of tenancy right to the developer. Accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute cost of acquisition.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of share purchase cost under Section 115BBE, arising from alleged bogus LTCG, is interlinked with the quantum issue.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since AO took plausible view of treating the interest chargeable u/s 28 of the Act being attributable to the business & allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held only ₹1.24 crore accumulation from A.Y. 1994-95 survives for possible Section 11(3) taxation; earlier years’ accumulations were non-existent, and matter restored to CIT(A) for limited verification.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad partly deleted notional rent additions, granting relief for Covid vacancies, sold properties and lack of ownership, while upholding unsupported self-occupation claims.
The Tribunal set aside a capital gains addition based solely on an unsigned digital MOU found in a third-party survey. It held that denial of document copies and cross-examination vitiated the assessment for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
