The issue was whether stamp duty value on the agreement date could replace the registration-date value for section 56 additions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the claimed earlier payment. Key takeaway: benefit of the proviso depends on proving the agreement and payment date.
The AO issued reassessment notices during the post-Ashish Agrawal transition phase. Applying later Supreme Court law, the ITAT held AY 2015-16 is beyond the permissible reopening period.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the impugned scrip i.e. Kyra Landscapes Ltd. is not in the list of shares in the investigation report in case of project bogus LTCG/STCL. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The ITAT accepted that repayment strengthens genuineness under section 68. Unrepaid loans with missing financial details were sent back for fresh verification.
ITAT Surat struck down a 50% turnover-based income estimation, applying Section 44AD to compute actual presumptive profit at 8%. Key takeaway: AO cannot inflate income without legal basis.
The issue was whether interest earned from a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that such interest is deductible, as a co-operative bank is itself a co-operative society.
The ITAT held that additions based on incorrect and unreconciled bank data cannot be sustained. The assessment was remanded for fresh verification of actual cash deposits and credits.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer has examined and accepted the source of property investment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot reopen the issue under section 263. The ruling emphasizes finality of AO’s findings.
The Tribunal examined whether an assessment ignoring a clear mismatch between turnover and TCS data could survive. It held that absence of enquiry on such discrepancy renders the order erroneous and prejudicial, justifying revision.
The assessee claimed the firm had dissolved and deposits belonged to a partner. The Tribunal held that absence of documentary proof justified treating bank deposits as unexplained income.
