The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that opening balances and share application money converted into loans from earlier years fall outside the scope of Section 68 for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition after finding factual and legal infirmities in the assessment.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the disputed amounts represented sale proceeds already disclosed and offered to tax. The Tribunal ruled that no income had escaped assessment in such circumstances.
ITAT Pune held that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied merely because Form 67 was filed after the prescribed due date. The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and cannot override the substantive right to FTC under the DTAA.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
The ITAT Mumbai held that settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not extinguish the legal existence of a reassessment order. Limitation under Section 154 must therefore be computed from the reassessment order, making the rectification application maintainable.
The Tribunal held that business promotion and development expenses cannot be disallowed without concrete evidence establishing their non-genuineness. Mere assumptions and doubts are insufficient to deny legitimate business expenditure.
The ITAT Agra declined to condone an extraordinary delay of 2,799 days in filing the quantum appeal, holding that the explanation regarding non-service of the appellate order did not constitute sufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
ITAT Pune ruled that investments in mutual funds and tax-free bonds should not form part of the investment pool for Rule 8D(2)(ii) calculations. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the details and recompute the disallowance. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 does not permit the PCIT to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer when two legally sustainable views exist. A revision based solely on a different interpretation of taxability is unsustainable.
