The issue was whether CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37(1) can still qualify under Section 80G. The Tribunal held that both provisions operate independently, allowing deduction if statutory conditions are met.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
Tribunal holds buyer’s intended industrial use does not alter land classification; gains from sale of agricultural land held non-taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
The ITAT held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers when the same issue is already pending before the appellate authority. The case involved share transaction additions treated as penny stock.
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.
