The Tribunal found the addition uncalled for. cash deposits from the sale of old vehicles, accepted as genuine sales by the AO, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 merely for the absence of buyers’ PAN or address details.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled in Arun Dhir vs DCIT that a lump sum in lieu of pension is exempt under Section 10(10A), rejecting the necessity of receiving it strictly upon superannuation.
DCIT Vs Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Project Terminated, Shares Worth Zero – ITAT Allows ₹68 Cr Capital Loss & Strikes Down 68 Addition A 90MW hydropower project was allotted by the Himachal Pradesh Govt. to HPPPL in 2009, which paid ₹18 Cr upfront fees. A project company MHEPCL was formed, shares were moved […]
The ITAT Delhi fully dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming the deletion of both the Rs.8.09 Cr peak credit addition and the Rs.49.54 Lakh interest disallowance after the assessee proved the sufficiency of own capital and commercial expediency. Consequently, the assessee’s cross-objection against the validity of the reassessment was dismissed as infructuous, reinforcing that no addition can be sustained without adequate proof of unexplained income.
The ITAT struck down the Rs. 8.19 crore addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) by ignoring the assessee’s share valuation based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The decision affirms that the AO lacks the authority to substitute their own value when a recognized method under Rule is used, and the underlying asset valuation is further corroborated by a higher DVO valuation.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
Mumbai ITAT rules capital gains on a foreign company’s share sale are non-taxable in India under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA. TRC is conclusive proof.
ITAT ruled in Grasim Industries that a court-sanctioned scheme transfer before the 2021 amendment is a transfer by law, not a slump sale under Section 50B. The change is not retrospective.
ITAT Jabalpur held that disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act on account of non-payment of Rural Infrastructure tax and dead rent needs verification. Accordingly, matter restored to the file of AO.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
