The Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Delhi deleted a long-term capital gains addition based on entries in a third-party seized diary. The Tribunal relied on earlier final orders in related cases where the same diary was found to lack evidentiary value.
ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restricted the addition to the exempt income of ₹2.63 lakh despite a higher Rule 8D computation.
he Tribunal held that accepted on-money receipts from earlier years could partly explain cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. It granted telescoping relief for 50% of the disputed addition under Section 68.
The ITAT Delhi held that LTCG exemption could not be denied merely because the shares were classified as a penny stock. The addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to price rigging, entry operators, or manipulation activities.
The Tribunal held that a residential unit does not lose its residential nature merely because it is located within a building housing a nursing home. Proportionate exemption under Section 54F was therefore allowed.
Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since statutory threshold of ₹50 lakh was not met, reassessment was quashed.
The Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹2.32 lakh on 40 grams of gold bullion after granting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to relief considering the prescribed jewellery limits and supporting evidence.
ITAT held that substantive rights in the property arose through the allotment letter and payment of consideration. Therefore, the period of holding was to be counted from allotment, resulting in Long-Term Capital Gain treatment.
The Tribunal rejected the challenge to disallowance of delayed PF and ESI employee contributions, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. It, however, directed verification of the assessee’s refund claim.
