DCIT Vs Shikha Indrakumar Agrawal (ITAT Nagpur) The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69C in respect of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) on sale of listed shares. The assessee had purchased 24,000 shares of […]
The Tribunal held that unrecovered advances made in the ordinary course of business can be allowed as business loss, even if they do not qualify as bad debts under section 36.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
The ITAT ruled that generation of surplus and project-based contractual arrangements do not automatically convert environmental conservation activities into commercial ventures. The Tribunal directed grant of Section 12A registration after finding the activities genuinely charitable.
The ITAT observed that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act differs from ordinary interest under Section 34 and forms part of enhanced compensation. Therefore, taxation provisions relating to interest income were held inapplicable.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
The Tribunal held that the charitable trust mistakenly filed Form 10AB under an incorrect clause of Section 12A due to a bona fide error. ITAT directed the CIT(E) to permit correction of the application and reconsider registration on merits.
The Tribunal observed that official salary documents issued by the employer and Income Tax Department showed salary income of only ₹4.67 lakh. The incorrect figure in the return was therefore held to be a typographical mistake requiring rectification.
The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
