The Tribunal held that treating part of the disclosed sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit amounts to double taxation. It directed deletion of the addition to the extent linked to the accepted sale consideration.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The Tribunal held that mere booking of flats and receipt of token advances do not justify revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method without legally enforceable agreements.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not questioned on stamp duty valuation and old payment sources. It remanded the case for fresh assessment with directions to consider explanations afresh.
The Revenue argued that incriminating material justified Section 153C action against a non-searched person. ITAT held that High Court quashing of notices conclusively ends jurisdiction under Section 153C.
Failing to report transporter details in your quarterly TDS return was a procedural error, not a tax deduction failure. Since assessee was not liable to deduct tax (thanks to the declarations), Section 40(a)(ia)—which applied only when tax is deductible but not deducted—could not be invoked.
