The Delhi ITAT held that liabilities already written back and offered to tax in later years cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). The Tribunal ruled that such an addition would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot survive when reasons recorded for reopening demonstrate non-application of mind. Following the Delhi High Court’s findings in the preceding year, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
The Bangalore ITAT held that Section 54 relief cannot be denied when capital gains are invested in a new residential house before filing the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal ruled that such investment satisfies the statutory requirement even without a prior deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee need not prove that a debt has actually become irrecoverable to claim a bad debt deduction. The Tribunal ruled that a proper write-off in the books of account is enough to qualify for the deduction.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a Section 40A(3) disallowance cannot be made on the assumption that cash payments might have exceeded statutory limits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that records showed payments were made through banking channels.
The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained where the tax department failed to establish actual receipt of interest income. The key takeaway is that presumptions and notings in seized documents cannot substitute proof of income.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
Addition of ₹11.14 crore on account of alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained without first verifying the assessee’s claim that purchases worth approximately ₹11.07 crore had been reversed in its books and were never claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income.
