ITAT Pune quashed a Section 148 notice based on vague information and directed deletion of a ₹51.35 lakh addition for lack of supporting material.Cases Discussed
Disallowance of assessee’s claim was upheld for set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged company under section 72A(4), holding that failure to satisfy the mandatory condition of issuing shares to the demerged company disentitled the assessee from claiming the statutory benefit.
Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not the entire sales turnover. When the seized evidence itself reflected corresponding business expenditure, the Revenue could not disregard such expenses while relying on the same material.
ITAT Bangalore remands 8% income estimation under Section 44AD based solely on bank deposits, directing fresh assessment on proper evidence.
ITAT Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) if those issues were not examined during scrutiny.
Interest on delayed payment of the FM radio migration fee was a compensatory business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1); no disallowance under Section 14A could be made in the absence of exempt income; CSR contributions made to an approved institution remained eligible for deduction under Section 80G notwithstanding the disallowance under Section 37(1)
ITAT Pune held that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), allowing tax exemption and consequential refund.
Penalty under section 271DA could not be sustained merely on the basis of unverified seized data without independent corroborative evidence. Revenue must conclusively establish violation of section 269ST, and where assessee had disclosed the income and paid due taxes, penalty was not automatic and must satisfy the test of reasonableness and statutory conditions.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of Section 11 exemption does not bar consideration of deductions under Section 57(iii) after factual verification.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of excess tax paid.
