The assessee claimed that amounts deposited in bank accounts were retailer collections remitted to the telecom company and not commission income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct proper verification.
ITAT Delhi condoned a 333-day delay in filing appeal after finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bona fide. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal treated the delay as a procedural defect.
Tribunal ruled that WhatsApp messages and digital records without corroborative evidence or proper certification could not sustain additions under the Income Tax Act.
The Patna ITAT upheld rejection of a trust’s Section 12AB registration after finding that the trust deed permitted application of income for persons residing outside India. The Tribunal held that Section 11 allows exemption only for charitable expenditure incurred in India.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded in the books of account. The matter was remanded for limited verification of sales records and related documents.
The Mumbai ITAT held that exemption under Section 54F has to be given effect before applying set-off provisions under Section 70(3). The assessee was allowed to carry forward long-term capital loss separately.
ITAT observed that Assessing Officer had treated jewellery sale proceeds as unexplained mainly because no wealth tax returns were filed. Tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination in light of supporting vouchers and legal precedents.
