The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
The issue was whether an outstanding loan could be taxed as deemed dividend in a year when no loan was received. The Tribunal held that the decisive factor is the year of payment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
ITAT Jaipur allows full leave encashment of ₹12.13 lakh under Section 10(10AA), citing CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 and judicial precedents.
Tribunal holds that leave encashment is fully exempt as the updated CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies. The rectification restricting exemption to ₹3 lakh was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced ₹25-lakh limit under section 10(10AA) must be applied based on earlier co-ordinate bench rulings. The key takeaway is that restriction to ₹3 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that interest received on enhanced compensation is nothing but compensation and hence for the interest received was eligible for exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that an assessment under section 143(3) is invalid if the section 143(2) notice does not comply with CBDT prescribed formats. The ruling nullifies both the assessment and related revisionary proceedings.
ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be applied automatically under section 14A; the AO must record satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee’s suomoto disallowance, quashing the incremental disallowance.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
