ITAT Chandigarh held that interest on refund resulting due to additional claim is payable from the date the additional ground, resulting into refund, has been put up for the first time. Here, TUFS receipt to be treated as capital receipt was for the first time taken up before CIT(A) on 04/01/2016.
ITAT Delhi held that it is an admitted fact that TDS is deducted from the salary and the same is not deposited, Governments claim of TDS stands satisfied under CRP. Hence, non-payment of deducted tax by the employer cannot be ground for rejection of TDS credit to the employee.
ITAT Hyderabad held that merely because the assessee took the land on lease for conducting their research operations to produce the foundation seeds of the hybrid varieties, such a lease cannot ipso facto make the operations of the assessee as contract farming.
ITAT Mumbai held that filing of an appeal against the order of AO was firstly in manual mode, which was duly accepted by the department, and thereafter in electronic mode without losing any time when pointed. The same is sufficient reason to condone the delay.
ITAT Delhi held that there are no evidence or allegation that there is receipt of money over and above sale consideration as disclosed in the sale deed, accordingly addition made on the basis of legal fiction created by section 43CA of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Addition of unexplained cash based on third-party statements was not sustainable as assessee had filed all documentary evidences which had not been adversely commented by the authorities below, coupled with the fact that the authorities below had made and sustained the additions on the basis of statements of third parties which had not been made available to assessees for cross examination.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled law that the revenue cannot travel beyond the issues involved in the limited scrutiny cases, except in exceptional circumstances and hence addition confirmed beyond the limited scrutiny case is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the source and genuineness of receipt of shares from brother in USA is proved, addition of the same is unsustainable in terms of explanation 2 to section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Also, there is no need for any ‘occasion’ for receipt of such gift from the brother.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of wastage charges there is no payment and once there is no payment there is no question of deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
Service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the statutory time limit is mandatory one and not a procedural requirement.
