Where the property was not actually let out, and was treated as self-occupied property, in case of vacant property, the annual value under section 23(1)(a) must be determined on the basis of the Municipal Rateable Value and not market rent.
The ITAT Bangalore deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh addition made on demonetisation cash deposits, ruling that cash from accounted sales in audited books cannot be deemed unexplained income simply due to being deposited during the demonetisation period. The Tribunal also deleted a Rs.4 lakh addition on lorry cost, finding the refund of an advance was correctly reflected in the genuine cash book.
The ITAT Bangalore set aside an ex-parte assessment, which included additions for low profit and demonetisation cash deposits, after the assessee cited the genuine reason of his son’s death and subsequent health issues for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the audited books, expenses, and cash sources after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
The core issue was the disallowance of Rs.169 Cr in Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), treated as capital expenditure for an enduring benefit. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that routine, recurring expenses like porting charges and handset subsidies in the telecom sector are revenue in nature and fully deductible under S 37(1).
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
The ITAT Mumbai canceled seven revisionary orders under section 263, ruling that for completed (unabated) assessments under section 153A, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot make additions or disallowances, such as challenging an 80IC deduction, without finding incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the PCIT’s power under $s.263$ cannot be used for a mere roving inquiry.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.1.89 Cr, which the AO treated as a donation to other trusts and deemed income under S 11(3). The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that payments made to other NGOs for executing charitable projects under the Trust’s supervision and control constitute genuine application of income, not donation.
The central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
