The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fresh consideration during the relevant year. The ruling emphasizes that the provision is triggered only upon actual receipt of share consideration.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since the Tribunal had issued no direction to tax ₹5 crore as income from other sources, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that actual rent received under genuine, registered agreements cannot be replaced with hypothetical market rent without cogent evidence of manipulation or unaccounted consideration. Since the Revenue failed to establish suppression of rent, the ALV addition was deleted.
ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cash resources to meet the impugned credit card payments. Since the authorities did not establish utilisation of cash elsewhere, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT Jodhpur deleted the disallowance relating to delayed PF and ESI deposits, holding that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the EPFO’s relaxation measures had not been properly considered. The Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach in exceptional circumstances.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be sustained without evidence of prior intimation to the assessee. The appeal was allowed as the Revenue failed to produce proof of notice.
The ITAT Mumbai held that gifts of shares completed before the introduction of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) could not be taxed under that provision. The ruling clarifies that subsequent procedural formalities cannot alter the original date of transfer.
The Delhi ITAT held that unsigned reasons recorded for reopening assessment constituted a jurisdictional defect that invalidated the reassessment proceedings. The defect was not curable under Section 292B of the Act.
The Chennai ITAT held that payments received by a UAE resident could not be taxed as Fees for Technical Services in India because the India-UAE DTAA lacks an FTS provision. In the absence of a Permanent Establishment, the income was treated as business profits not taxable in India.
