Ahmedabad ITAT deleted Rs. 9.64 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding that only net interest income is taxable after deducting interest expenditure on borrowed funds.
The issue was whether capital gains could be computed under section 50C without referring valuation to the DVO despite the assessee’s objection. The ITAT held that denial of a DVO reference violates statutory rights and remanded the matter for fresh valuation.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where receipts were linked to declared sales and no evidence of cash back was shown. Acceptance of sales negates Section 68 in the absence of proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a ₹2.28 crore unexplained property investment case to the AO, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to provide supporting documents, while imposing a ₹5,000 cost for non-compliance.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment beyond three years was valid when the assessed escaped income was only ₹13.98 lakh. It held that failure to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold under section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The tribunal held that every oil well constitutes an independent undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IB(9). The key takeaway is that profits of individual wells cannot be clubbed merely because they operate under a single contract.
The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT disagrees with the Assessing Officer’s view. Once enquiries are made and explanations accepted, substitution of opinion is impermissible.
The ITAT held that even a small part payment through banking channels before or on the agreement date is sufficient to invoke the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Substantial payment or possession is not a statutory requirement.
