: ITAT Bangalore held that indexed cost of construction cannot be denied merely because the sale deed described the property as a vacant plot. The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence such as rental income records, approved plans, contractor confirmations, and TDS details to establish existence of the building.
ITAT Bangalore held that rebate under Section 87A cannot be denied on short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A where total income is below Rs. 7 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no statutory prohibition existed during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
The ITAT Agra held that the tax authorities failed to consider earlier cash withdrawals while treating demonetization deposits as unexplained. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.1 lakh and granted substantial relief to the assessee.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had disclosed sales and provided debtor details. The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
The Bangalore ITAT deleted disallowance on transport expenses incurred across India through drivers and local agents. The ruling emphasized that practical realities of the transport industry cannot be ignored while assessing business expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT upheld exclusion of manufacturing entities from transfer pricing comparables after finding that the assessee’s activities were mainly trading in nature. The Tribunal held that manufacturers and traders differ significantly in functions, assets, and risks.
The Delhi ITAT restored the assessment proceedings after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider documents and submissions uploaded during e-proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appellate finding of non-compliance was contrary to the record.
The Delhi ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had furnished certain records relating to the unsecured loan transaction. The Tribunal directed fresh examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness under Section 68.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings due to missed email notices. The assessment was restored for de novo adjudication.
