The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
The Assessing Officer alleged incorrect claim of stamp duty expenditure without identifying any such entry in the accounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding it to be based on presumption.
The ITAT restored an ex-parte assessment where LTCG was added mechanically without hearing the taxpayer. The ruling reinforces that denial of natural justice vitiates capital gains assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of entire business losses by Assessing Officer without pointing out specific defects is not permissible. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and order set aside.
The issue was whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are co-operative societies for this provision, making the interest fully deductible.
ITAT Pune held that deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act admissible on interest income received by co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks and nationalized banks. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance on account alleged fictitious trading loss in absence of any direct incriminating material is not sustainable. Accordingly, CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the present appeal by revenue is dismissed.
The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
