Since the Form 10B was filed along with the return of income and within the due date of filing the return of income, the delay in filing the Form 10B could not be a ground for denial of the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
ITAT Chennai held that mere CRS data without corroborative evidence cannot justify taxing balances in foreign trusts as undisclosed assets when the assessee has not contributed funds or derived income.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
ITAT Kolkata held that investments in foreign life insurance policies were made from legitimate non-resident income and inherited sources. Addition of Rs. 1.08 crore under Black Money Act was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that USD 2.41 lakh deposits in Jersey bank accounts were inherited from the assessee’s parents and not undisclosed foreign income, setting aside the CIT(A)’s addition under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
Tribunal held that Section 69A covers unexplained money, not loans recorded in books. As all 14 lenders confirmed transactions with evidence, ₹1.86 crore addition was deleted.
The ITAT Bangalore confirmed that an initial order’s failure to consider a binding High Court ruling on bad debt deductibility constitutes a mistake apparent from record. This allowed the bank to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for non-rural bad debts via rectification, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The key takeaway is that disregarding settled jurisdictional law is a rectifiable error, not a debatable issue.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance of interest expense after the real estate firm successfully proved that the mutual fund investment in question was made using interest-free own funds, not borrowed capital. The ruling emphasizes that disallowance requires evidence of borrowed funds being diverted for non-business purposes.
