ITAT Mumbai held that TDS need not be deducted on year-end expense provisions where payees are unidentifiable and liability crystallizes later. Case remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that consideration from a redevelopment agreement is taxable in hands of individual members, not co-operative housing society. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹4.97 crore addition, confirming that society acted merely as a representative.
ITAT held that once income is accounted in the Profit & Loss statement, further addition by the tax authority is unlawful. The order restores the correct claim of losses and eliminates double addition.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of additions under Section 68 after the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of lenders. Interest disallowance was also deleted as loans were repaid and taxed transactions verified.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments for A.Ys 2011–12 and 2012–13 were invalid since they fell outside the ten-year block reckoned from the date of receipt of seized material. The Tribunal followed CIT v. Jasjit Singh (SC) and Ojjus Medicare (Del HC) rulings.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since cash deposit during demonetization duly reflected as cash sales and there was no abnormal spike in sales during demonetization.
ITAT Delhi held that comparable controlled transaction cannot be taken as comparable to benchmark the international transaction. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction towards payment of royalty deleted.
ITAT Indore held that activity of providing hostel/mess is part of main activity of imparting education. Hence, claim of 15% of gross receipts as eligible exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act justified.
ITAT Delhi held that a seized document mentioning ₹18 lakh could not, without corroboration, be treated as undisclosed income of Krishna Gopal Saraf, deleting the addition.
ITAT Delhi allowed Ekalavya Gift Galleries Pvt. Ltd.’s appeals, holding that share capital and premium received from investors were properly explained and not taxable under section 68.
