ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
ITAT Delhi set aside the income tax assessment for AY 2020-21 after the proprietor’s death, directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh on the legal representative’s liability. The ruling emphasizes proper recognition of legal heirs in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 to Assessing Officer for fresh verification, citing lack of adequate opportunity and consideration of evidence by lower authorities.
Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under Income from House Property. The ruling clarifies that only actual rental income or sale proceeds are taxable, protecting developers from arbitrary assessments.
Tribunal held that tax authorities erred in invoking Article 24A to deny capital gains exemption under Article 13(4A) without first satisfying preconditions of economic substance. The decision underscores that anti-abuse provisions cannot override bona fide investments made before 2017.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a delay of over 1,000 days in filing an appeal, holding that the Covid-19 period stands excluded under the Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation, allowing the assessee’s appeal to proceed.
The Tribunal allowed stay of recovery after directing a jewellery firm to pay ₹10 lakh and furnish a ₹10 lakh bank guarantee, holding 20% payment mandatory under section 254(2A).
