ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Indore held that the registered sale-deed would relate back to and have effect from 26.03.2013 falling with previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 and hence the impugned transaction of sale was taxable in AY 2013-14 and not in 2014-15. Accordingly, reopening of assessment for AY 2014-2015 is illegal and unsustainable.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
Delhi ITAT rules that reduction in percentage shareholding due to fresh share issuance is not a transfer under Income Tax law, providing relief to minority shareholders.
ITAT held that the assessee’s long-standing change of address constituted reasonable cause for late filing and remanded the case for merit-based adjudication.
ITAT Indore held that the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act made out by authorities, without serving notice upon assessee, would be invalid and inoperative. Accordingly, action undertaken by AO u/s. 147/148 will also be illegal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings after noting the assessee produced no evidence to counter verified disallowances. Key takeaway: appellate relief requires substantiated rebuttal of factual verification.
The Tribunal removed the interest disallowance after holding that the assessee’s earlier favourable ruling covered the issue. Key takeaway: once a factual issue is already adjudicated in the assessee’s own case, consistency must be maintained.
The ITAT sent back the issue of carry-forward business losses for re-examination because assessment records did not clarify earlier allowances. Key takeaway: loss set-off must be verified year-by-year before denial.
The case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
