ITAT held that Section 54 permits exemption where capital gains from more than one residential house are invested in a single residential house.
ITAT confirmed additions under Section 68 after relying on earlier findings that the lender companies provided accommodation entries.
ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot substitute the DCF method chosen under Rule 11UA with the NAV method without legal justification.
ITAT deleted Section 68 additions after finding that the assessee established investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness with documentary evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held that a one-day delay in filing Form 10DA could not defeat a Section 80JJAA deduction when the form was on record before the Section 143(1) intimation.
Transfer pricing principles dictate that a captive, risk-mitigated service provider could not be benchmarked against full-fledged, risk-bearing entrepreneurs, companies owning substantial intellectual property, or those generating revenue through software products.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Section 115BB addition after holding that the gaming platform’s records showed a net loss, not taxable winnings.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessees bona fide belief, based on the Departments consistent acceptance of interest income as Income from Other Sources, amounted to reasonable cause under Section 273B. The penalty under Section 271B was deleted.
ITAT held that where sales are accepted, the entire purchase amount cannot be added. The addition was restricted to 8% as the embedded profit element.
ITAT held that exemption under Sections 54/54F cannot be denied where sale proceeds are invested in a residential house within the prescribed period.
