ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) after finding that payments were made to multiple labourers and no individual payment exceeded statutory limit. Tribunal accepted that bulk transfers were only administrative in nature.
ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional income cannot be brought to tax. The ruling relied on the principle that only real income is taxable.
ITAT Indore set aside the appellate order denying TDS credit after the assessee produced Form 16A and Form 26AS showing deduction and payment of tax by the deductor. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of eligible credit.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that a demolished and uninhabitable structure could not be treated as a residential house for Section 54F purposes. The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s eligibility for capital gains exemption.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Security Receipt holders because the trust qualified as a revocable trust under Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Indore held that Section 50C could not be invoked where the difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was only 1.19%. The Tribunal directed adoption of actual sale consideration as the full value for capital gains computation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form 10-IE filed along with the return could not be ignored merely because it was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to recompute tax under the new tax regime.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form No. 10DA was filed late due to technical glitches on the income tax portal. The Tribunal noted that the form was available with CPC before processing the return.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
