While upholding part of addition under Section 2(22)(e), ITAT Mumbai directed Assessing Officer to restrict deemed dividend amount only to extent of accumulated profits of lending company.
ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenues appeal, ruling that Goodwill from a High Court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset under Section 32, rejecting the claim that it represents non-depreciable land value.
ITAT Surat rules company’s capital contribution to a partnership firm for business purposes is not a loan or advance, thus escaping deemed dividend tax u/s 2(22)(e).
ITAT Mumbai condoned a 388-day delay and remanded the case of Dahisar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat to the Assessing Officer to verify ₹29.46 lakh in cash deposits claimed to be received from members during demonetisation, directing a fresh assessment after fair hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, in Mahendra Prakash Pawar Vs ITO, deleted an addition of ₹21.69 lakh made under Section 69C for unexplained credit card payments. The court accepted the assessee’s explanation that cash deposits came from his brother’s transportation business for fuel purchases.
ITAT Delhi nullified a reassessment, ruling that mandatory sanction under Section 151 was invalid because it was granted by Principal Commissioner (PCIT). Tribunal held that reopening assessments after three years requires approval from higher authority: Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT).
ITAT Delhi confirmed that a statutory development authority’s activities, such as land development and housing, are charitable under Section 2(15), not commercial. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency, relying on multiple High Court and ITAT precedents for similar development bodies.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s view that assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 fell outside permissible six-year block under Section 153C. Additions made by AO were held time-barred and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the assessment under Section 153C was time-barred because the block period must be calculated from the date the Assessing Officer (AO) of the non-searched person received the seized material. The ruling confirms that the date of the original search is irrelevant for non-searched persons.
ITAT Delhi ruled that Section 50C, which allows revaluing property based on circle rates, applies only to the seller in a transfer, not the buyer in a slump sale governed by Section 50B. The Tribunal held that goodwill is depreciable, but its value must be verified by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
