The issue was whether penalty could be imposed for disallowance arising from a disclosed change in lease rent accounting. The Tribunal held that a bona fide, disclosed and debatable claim cannot attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that absence of evidence beyond one month bars estimation for the full year. Only the amount directly supported by survey material can be taxed.
ITAT Bangalore held that claiming of amortised upfront fees i.e. 1/5th of the upfront fees paid is not allowable since the entire amount is already claimed as deduction. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue/department is allowed.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
The issue was whether 100% of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed despite accepted production and sales. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement by the Commissioner does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
