The ITAT Kolkata confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.04 Cr addition under Section 68 against Eskag Sanjeevani, ruling that documented unsecured loans received and fully repaid through banking channels cannot be deemed bogus.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the date of a Letter of Intent (LOI), 14.02.2011, constitutes the date of acquisition for a flat, allowing indexation from that date for Long-Term Capital Gains computation.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.22 Cr addition under Section 43CA for AY 2018-19, ruling that the 10% tolerance limit (safe harbor) for the difference between sale consideration and property valuation is a beneficial, curative amendment and thus applies retrospectively from the provision’s insertion.
This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
Invalid 143(2) notice format kills assessment. Kolkata ITAT quashes s.143(3) assessment (Pankhuri Mishra Vs ITO) as notice didn’t specify scrutiny type (limited/complete) per CBDT mandate.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a RS.4 crore addition made under Section 68 against Livros Publishing Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the share application money received through banking channels from a listed NBFC.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that losses of Rs.18.6 crore incurred by Fiem Industries Ltd. on target-redemption forward contracts to hedge export receivables were genuine business losses, not speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond time limit of six year is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal allowed and notice quashed.
