The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established a prima facie case regarding deduction eligibility for habitable-unit expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of ₹5.85 crore addition under Section 40A(3), confirming that payments to meat producers under Rule 6DD(e)(ii) are exempt.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
The Court reviewed bogus purchases of Rs. 4.65 crore, confirming the purchases as unverifiable but reduced the income estimation from 12.5% to 8%. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income already taxed under a proprietorship cannot be taxed again in a partnership, deleting the estimated 2% addition by CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi upheld that failure to pass a speaking order on objections under GKN Driveshafts makes reassessment void, dismissing Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13
ITAT Kolkata held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit if the employer fails to deposit deducted tax. Once TDS is deducted from salary, it is deemed paid, and the employee’s liability does not arise. The Tribunal directed full TDS credit and deletion of the demand.
Tribunal held that AO had conducted detailed inquiries on a partner’s debit balance and correctly accepted it as capital withdrawal, not a loan. PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was based on assumptions and a change of opinion, not any factual error. The order was quashed.
