The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be accepted solely on the basis of loan confirmations. It held that confirmations alone do not establish creditworthiness or genuineness and directed further verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal examined whether donations made as part of CSR obligations could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. It held that deduction cannot be denied merely because the payment was made towards CSR, subject to fulfillment of Section 80G conditions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition based solely on discrepancies in unaudited Tally-generated statements was unsustainable. The Tribunal accepted the audited financial statements and ordered deletion of the ₹36.5 lakh addition.
The Tribunal accepted that part of the cash found with the assessee represented accumulated family savings intended for the medical treatment of his wife suffering from cancer. It granted relief of ₹12 lakh and sustained only ₹7.79 lakh as unexplained income.
The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section 153D. As a result, the assessment order was quashed and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own earlier years had already been decided in its favour. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D reflected no proper application of mind and was issued in a mechanical manner. As a result, the assessments framed pursuant to such approval were quashed.
