ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai rules scholarships to Indian students studying abroad qualify as valid charitable application in India. Denial of 12AB and 80G set aside, clarifying registration stage scope is limited to objects and genuineness.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹1.64 Cr reassessment for faceless violation & time-barred notice u/s 148; holds jurisdictional defect fatal, TOLA cannot extend limitation.
The case involved addition on account of unexplained foreign remittances. The Tribunal held that failure to examine documentary evidence warranted remand for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that limited religious spending within 5% does not bar 80G approval. The key takeaway is that incidental religious activity does not negate charitable status.
ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit mismatch for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that loans received from NBFCs cannot be treated as unexplained where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are established. Absence of incriminating material led to deletion of additions.
The issue involved additions based on mismatch between property registration and payment dates. The Tribunal held that delayed encashment of cheques does not indicate unexplained investment. It concluded that the additions lacked factual basis and directed deletion.
The ruling emphasizes that once the Transfer Pricing Officer accepts the arm’s length nature of a transaction, the Assessing Officer cannot question its reasonableness. The disallowance was deleted as the interest rate complied with transfer pricing norms and reflected commercial reality.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹8.44 crore was unsustainable as it was based on incorrect assumptions about multiple bank accounts. It ruled that properly recorded and explained transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
