The tribunal held that capital gains from share buyback are not taxable in India under treaty provisions. It clarified that such transactions qualify as corporate reorganisation. The key takeaway is that DTAA benefits override domestic tax provisions when more beneficial.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked in absence of exempt income. It clarified that taxable dividend income eliminates the basis for disallowance.
The ITAT clarified that Article 13(3A) applies strictly to shares and not to derivative instruments. It held that derivative gains fall under residual provisions and are taxable in the resident country. The ruling emphasizes correct interpretation of DTAA provisions.
The Tribunal held that reporting income in the wrong schedule does not amount to concealment. It ruled that tax cannot be levied when income is already disclosed, even if incorrectly classified.
The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The ruling emphasizes the burden of proof on taxpayers in cash credit cases.
ITAT held that reassessment notice issued after three years without PCCIT approval violates Section 151(ii). The approval taken from PCIT was found insufficient. The ruling confirms that proper authority approval is mandatory for valid reassessment.
ITAT remanded the case as authorities failed to determine whether the assessee was a society, trust, or other entity. The eligibility for deduction was not properly examined. The ruling highlights the need for factual verification before denying tax benefits.
The issue was whether interest on FDRs qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal held that such income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. The key takeaway is that interest from cooperative institutions can qualify for exemption.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note can cover multiple assessment years under Section 153C. The Tribunal held that absence of year-wise satisfaction renders the proceedings invalid. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction requires specific satisfaction for each year.
The tribunal held that addition under Section 69C is not valid where expenditure is properly recorded and the source is explained. The key takeaway is that documented transactions through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained.
