ITAT Raipur held that alleged bogus purchases relating to a partnership firm could not be taxed protectively in the hands of one partner without direct linkage. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs.1.92 crore addition made on protective basis.
The Mumbai ITAT restored additions relating to unreconciled DGFT import and export figures after finding that complete data relied upon by the Department had not been furnished to the assessee. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication after providing detailed DGFT records and an opportunity for reconciliation.
Tribunal ruled that reliance on statement of an alleged accommodation entry provider without furnishing statement or allowing cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
ITAT Agra held that an inadvertent disclosure of exempt income under “income from other sources” could not deny exemption to an educational institution. The Tribunal directed rectification of the tax demand after verifying eligibility under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue’s appeal was not maintainable after excluding Education Cess from tax effect computation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect fell below the CBDT threshold limit of Rs.60 lakh.
Tribunal ruled that unsold flats shown as stock-in-trade by a real estate developer cannot attract notional rent taxation. The decision relied on earlier judicial precedents recognizing such assets as part of business operations.
ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written back and taxed in a subsequent year could not again be taxed through disallowance in earlier years.
ITAT Chennai held that before the 2016 amendment, DSIR approval under Section 35(2AB) related to the in-house R&D facility and not yearly expenditure quantification. The Tribunal upheld full weighted deduction despite partial approval in Form 3CL.
The ITAT Surat remanded a case involving a Rs.30 lakh gift treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to submit bank records and explain the source of the gift.
ITAT Delhi held that a satisfaction note under Section 153C must clearly state how seized material bears on the assessee’s income determination. The Tribunal quashed the assessments after finding the statutory requirement was not properly recorded.
