The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee’s convertible debentures lacked the liability component required for classification as Compound Financial Instruments. Consequently, they could not be treated as transition amount under Section 115JB(2C).
The Tribunal ruled that tax demand cannot be raised against an employee where TDS was deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer. The decision reiterates the protection available under Section 205 of the Income-tax Act.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the addition alleging bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions after finding no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry.
ITAT Cochin ruled that faculty engaged by a coaching institute were independent professionals and not employees. It held that TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194J, deleting the demand raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must clearly indicate whether the alleged default is under-reporting or misreporting, as both attract different consequences under Section 270A. Failure to do so rendered the penalty order invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the tax authorities failed to consider evidence of an earlier agreement and prior payments before invoking Section 56(2)(x). The addition based on the stamp duty value was deleted.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that an uncorroborated loose sheet could not justify an addition under Section 69 for alleged on-money payment. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition as no independent evidence supported the Revenue’s case.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing because appellate notices were not served in the mode opted in Form 35. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity.
The Mumbai ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be sustained where income is determined purely on estimation after rejection of books. It also ruled that a show-cause notice failing to specify whether the penalty is for under-reporting or misreporting of income is legally defective and invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits arising from recorded and accepted cash sales cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting the books of account or stock records.
