ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 56(2) towards receipt of gift from HUF to be re-considered for exemption under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with specific direction.
ITAT Kolkata deletes ₹7.84 crore addition on F&O and currency-derivative losses as AO relied solely on a now-vacated SEBI interim order. Tribunal emphasized that the assessee submitted full documentary evidence, which remained unrebutted, confirming losses as genuine.
ITAT clarifies that capital gains arise on the date of JDA execution, not registration, and allows reassessment if the agreement is cancelled before possession transfer.
ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of ₹8.70 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that proper evidence and confirmations by loan creditors absolved the assessee. Arbitrary AO findings cannot justify tax.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
