The Tribunal held that compensation received for unauthorised occupation merely substitutes lost rent. Since the property remained intact, the receipt was taxable as revenue income under Section 23(1).
ITAT held that assessing an AOP without initiating reassessment proceedings against it is impermissible in law. The entire reassessment was declared non-est and additions were deleted.
The Tribunal restricted additions on demonetization-era cash deposits where books were audited and not rejected. Only a nominal amount was sustained to balance equity.
The Tribunal ruled that denial of Section 54F relief without proper verification was premature. The Assessing Officer must re-examine ownership and payment evidence before deciding the claim.
The Tribunal held that a loan repaid through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained when identity and creditworthiness are shown. Allegations based on untested statements were rejected.
The dispute centered on whether commission recipients actually rendered services. The tribunal ruled that in absence of summons, rejection of books, or contrary evidence, the expense could not be disallowed.
Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was held outside the scope of Section 10(37). The Tribunal clarified that only compensation qualifies for exemption, not interest.
The Tribunal held that employee stock option plan costs are allowable revenue expenditure. Following binding High Court precedent, the ₹93 lakh disallowance was deleted.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the permissible limitation period were invalid. Applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal, all proceedings were quashed as being beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply amended provisions taxing interest on enhanced compensation. Revision under Section 263 was upheld as the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
