The tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 bars foreign tax credit. It held that filing before completion of assessment is sufficient, allowing the credit.
Smt. Satyabhama Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad ITAT deleted the addition of ₹16.55 lakh u/s 69A, holding that cash found during search was duly explained by earlier accepted cash balance. The Tribunal also condoned a 97-day delay, adopting a liberal approach considering the assessee’s age, lack of digital access, and procedural difficulties. On merits, […]
The issue was whether failure to deduct TDS due to court directions attracts default. The Tribunal held that compliance with binding interim orders prevents liability under Section 201.
The case involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained income. The tribunal accepted the explanation of foreign remittances and deleted the addition, emphasizing lack of contrary evidence.
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
