ITAT Nagpur held that nominal donations received in small amounts could not be treated as non-voluntary contributions merely because PAN or full address details of donors were unavailable. The Tribunal found no adverse evidence questioning the genuineness of donations or activities.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
ITAT Hyderabad held that rural agricultural land situated beyond 8 kilometres from municipal limits cannot be taxed as a capital asset merely because the purchaser later used it for commercial plotting. The Tribunal ruled that future use by the buyer does not alter the land’s character in the seller’s hands.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the assessee had furnished complete details of investor companies and share allotment. The Tribunal held that verified share application money could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive verification of agricultural income and expenses. The Tribunal observed that detailed notices, documentary evidence, and independent inquiries were part of the original assessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that family loans continued to remain payable and were merely reclassified in the capital account.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 and judicial precedents on jurisdictional defects.
