ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of Foreign Tax Credit [FTC] on the ground that corresponding income has not been offered for tax in the year under appeal is not justifiable. Accordingly, FTC allowed.
ITAT Kolkata addresses procedural lapses in Suryadeo Prasad Vs. ITO, highlighting the need for a speaking order and adherence to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
On appeal CIT (A) held that disallowance u/s 10AA can be made only when the total income is enhanced by the AO or TPO. Co-ordinate bench has already decided this issue for AY 2014-15 and disallowance u/s 10AA was deleted.
CIT(E) was not justified in denying assessee’s applications for final registration u/s 12AB / final approval u/s 80G as assessee had done only charitable activities till now and not undertaken any activity contemplated by object No. 2 & 3.
An amendment to the agreement on September 24, 2014, revised the terms of consideration. Assessee argued that possession of the property was never transferred as evidenced by ownership documents like the 7/12 extract and electricity bills.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on grounds other than grounds forming part of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment not justified. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment which didn’t form part of reasons liable to be deleted.
ITAT Pune held that addition toward unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted since assessee inadvertently mentioned ‘commission expense’ instead of actual ‘construction expenses. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not justified since loan transactions were done through banking channels and loans were repaid in short period. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash deposits rightly deleted since it is already part of the turnover of the business. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
As regarding disallowance of interest-free loans on unsecured loans, it was concluded that the same were part of routine business transactions and were of short-term nature therefore, no addition for interest charged on the loans.
