Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan addition after finding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness established through PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and TDS records.
The Tribunal held that deposits received from members of a registered cooperative society cannot be treated as unexplained credits when supported by books and member-wise records.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that expenses already disallowed by the assessee were again disallowed during processing, resulting in double addition. The issue was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
ITAT Pune held that failure to deposit the entire amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat Section 54F claim if full investment is made within the stipulated period. The ruling follows Karnataka High Court precedent. The addition of ₹91.45 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that actuarially valued provisions mandated by law constitute application of income under Section 11 and cannot be disallowed merely due to absence of cash outflow.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition under Section 68, holding that reliance on an investigation report without independent verification and without disproving documentary evidence cannot sustain bogus LTCG allegations.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that failure of the Assessing Officer to verify genuineness of a ₹30 lakh donation under Section 80GGC rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to ensure consistent adjudication.
