ITAT held that exemption under Sections 54/54F cannot be denied where sale proceeds are invested in a residential house within the prescribed period.
ITAT ruled that a justice-oriented approach should prevail over technical objections. Matter remanded for adjudication on merits.
Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Group and covered Assessment Years (AYs) 2020-21 to 2023-24. Although several legal grounds were initially raised, the assessees did not press those grounds during the hearing. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, confined itself to deciding […]
The ITAT Chandigarh held that no TDS was deductible where professional fees paid to each payee were below the statutory threshold. It also deleted the branch stock addition after finding that the unsold stock represented an amount recoverable from the branch and not taxable income.
The ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB could not be rejected without identifying a specific “specified violation” under the statutory framework. It remanded the matter for fresh examination after finding the order lacked clear and reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s contention regarding ownership of the bank account required proper verification before sustaining the addition under Section 69A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that once registration under Section 12AB had been directed to be granted, the primary basis for rejecting approval under Section 80G ceased to exist. The matter was remanded to examine the remaining statutory conditions under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
The Chandigarh ITAT held that deduction under Section 54 cannot be restricted merely because the new residential property is jointly held with a spouse. The decisive factor is the source of investment, which in this case originated entirely from the assessee.
The Chandigarh ITAT ruled that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii), holding that post-2009 amendments govern the issue despite claims for exemption under Section 10(37).
