The Revenue treated a ₹2 crore accumulation disclosed in Form No. 10 as unaccounted income of the trust. The Tribunal ruled that procedural filings cannot substitute evidence of actual income and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal examined whether an incorrect statement of financial transactions filed by a bank could lead to reassessment and addition in the wrong person’s hands. It ruled that admitted reporting errors must be rectified and cannot form the sole basis for taxation.
The Revenue sought to tax software distribution income as royalty despite judicial precedents to the contrary. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that software sales do not automatically attract royalty taxation.
The Revenue disallowed loan repayments alleging double deduction of charitable expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence established that no double claim had been made and directed deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant year.
The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that funds received by a Chartered Accountant for remitting clients’ taxes could not be treated as unexplained money. Documentary evidence showing corresponding tax payments led to deletion of the additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that appellate forums can entertain additional claims even without a revised return. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the alleged double taxation claim.
