The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization. Mere disclosure in books was insufficient without proof of genuineness and credibility.
The issue was whether sale of agricultural land attracts capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that land situated beyond prescribed municipal limits is not a capital asset. The key takeaway is that location plays a decisive role in taxability.
ITAT confirmed that the amended 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE applies prospectively from April 2017 onwards. For earlier transactions, only the 30% rate applies, safeguarding taxpayers from retrospective burden.
ITAT ruled that the amendment requiring aggregation of consideration under Section 194-IA applies only from October 2024. For earlier years, TDS applicability must be determined individually per buyer-seller transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the order as the CIT(A) failed to examine judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The tribunal held that the holding period of the previous owner must be included when property is acquired through inheritance or trust devolution. As a result, gains were treated as long-term and exemption under Section 54EC was allowed, while Section 54 was remanded for verification.
The case involved denial of deduction due to delayed execution of purchase deed. The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction property qualifies as construction within the extended time limit. It ruled that deduction cannot be denied on technical interpretation of timelines.
The tribunal ruled that compensation under a government-approved restructuring scheme qualifies as retrenchment. It allowed full tax exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition as seized loose sheets lacked key details and no supporting evidence proved unaccounted sales. Reliance solely on such documents was held insufficient.
The tribunal held reopening invalid where actual escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It clarified that jurisdiction depends on real income, not transaction value.
