Pune ITAT observed that the Revenue had accepted the assessee’s scrap business in earlier and later years by estimating profit on turnover. The ruling held that this history must be considered before treating deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 does not distinguish between business advances and loans when unexplained credits appear in the books. The key takeaway is that real estate developers must prove the source and credibility of customer advances.
Pune ITAT held that once TNMM is accepted for a taxpayer’s aggregated international transactions, the TPO cannot isolate a single transaction and apply a different method. The ruling deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and reinforced consistency in benchmarking.
Pune ITAT held that Section 43CA is prospective and applies only from Assessment Year 2014-15 onward to eligible transactions. Agreements executed before the provisions introduction remain outside its scope.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that where a capital asset was acquired before 01.04.2001, the claim for adopting fair market value as on that date must be examined on merits. The key takeaway is that statutory valuation rights cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone.
Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-tax Act. Since ownership of the land and building remained with MSRTC, lease receipts could not be taxed under the house property head.
The Tribunal deleted a ₹96.23 crore disallowance after finding that the liabilities crystallised during the relevant assessment year. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the liabilities had arisen and become ascertainable in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly state the specific limb of Section 270A being invoked. Absence of such specification was held fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The ITAT Jaipur held that deduction under Section 54F cannot be denied merely due to delay in completing construction when the assessee had substantially constructed a habitable residential house within the prescribed period. The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that generalized investigation reports cannot substitute for concrete evidence against an assessee. Since the transactions were supported by documents and no direct evidence of undisclosed income existed, the addition was deleted.
