ITAT Chennai ruled that notional contract values in F&O trading cannot be treated as real income. The case was sent back to the AO for reassessment based on actual profits and losses.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai quashed a reassessment notice under Section 148, holding that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material. This safeguards taxpayers from arbitrary reassessments.
Tribunal upheld 153C jurisdiction based on seized documents and statements, but rejected the AO’s full bogus-purchase addition, sustaining only a 10% profit estimation after book rejection under section 145(3).
The Tribunal remanded the appeal after the CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee can now submit confirmations to substantiate claims. Key takeaway: procedural lapses should not prevent merit-based adjudication.
Tribunal overruled CIT(A), following Madras High Court precedent, and treated proceeds from sale of Silver Oak trees as agricultural income. Human cultivation, not wild growth, defines agricultural income.
The order was remanded after ITAT found the CIT(A) overlooked core issues including validity of belated 148 return, applicability of 153C, and cross-examination rights.
The tribunal held that brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation remain in the books until fully absorbed and must be allowed as reduction under Section 115JB. The ruling rejects the Revenue’s stand and upholds the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition.
Tribunal held that MEIS/MLFPS rewards are capital receipts, not income under sections 2(24)(xviii) or 28. The ruling confirms that export-linked duty scrip sales are non-taxable when meant for market expansion.
