ITAT Cuttack deleted a ₹15.45 lakh demonetization cash deposit addition based on bank confirmation. Tribunal also reduced estimated net profit rate for wholesale trader from 1.5/% to 1/%
ITAT Chennai remanded a Section 69A unexplained cash deposit addition back to the AO. The assessee is permitted to submit new evidence, including bank statements, for fresh consideration of the claim.
ITAT Pune annulled reassessment proceedings, holding that approval by PCIT instead of PCCIT for notices issued after three years was contrary to Section 151.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable qualify as construction under Section 54 and are eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable up to the date of occupation are eligible for Section 54 exemption, subject to verification.
Tribunal held that sale proceeds of fixtures sold with a flat could not be taxed separately under income from other sources and quashed the CIT’s Section 263 order.
Bangalore ITAT held that expenditure of Rs. 8.65 lakh on interiors of a new house qualifies for exemption under Section 54, reversing the disallowance made by tax authorities.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
