The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investment was made during the assessment year in question. Documentary evidence showing the transaction belonged to an earlier year remained uncontroverted.
ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional interest under Section 244A(1A) because the Assessing Officer failed to pass the appeal effect order within the statutory timeline.
The Tribunal held that once Second Line Support services were examined and covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement, disallowance under Section 37(1) could not be sustained.
ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effect order was invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed without establishing a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business use. The absence of supporting evidence led to deletion of the addition.
ITAT Chennai held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied through TDS processing for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A was introduced only prospectively.
The ITAT held that, following the Supreme Court’s ruling denying LFC exemption for foreign travel, a bank could be treated as an assessee in default where no court order restrained TDS deduction.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
