Mumbai ITAT held that the Revenue could not attribute the entire execution revenue from cross-border deals to the Indian PE without adequate evidence. The Tribunal upheld revenue sharing based on actual functions performed by overseas offices.
Mumbai ITAT held that maintenance charges and other collections received exclusively from members of a co-operative society are exempt under the doctrine of mutuality. Surplus generated from such receipts does not constitute taxable income.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the entire property investment is supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that conjectures cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficient without transaction-specific evidence. The key takeaway is that direct documentary proof carries greater evidentiary value.
ITAT Mumbai held that appellate forums can entertain additional claims even without a revised return. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the alleged double taxation claim.
The Tribunal held that a 12.5% disallowance could not be sustained when the Assessing Officer neither rejected the books of account nor disputed the sales. The key takeaway is that additions must be supported by proper findings and evidence.
Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(vii). The key takeaway is that timely banking-channel payments pursuant to the agreement are crucial for claiming the benefit.
The Tribunal ruled that premium rooms, higher tariffs, and specialized medical facilities cannot by themselves establish a profit motive. Charitable status must be tested on statutory criteria rather than perceptions of affordability or luxury.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where the assessee’s interest-free funds substantially exceeded its investments. It reaffirmed that the Revenue must establish a direct nexus between borrowings and exempt-income investments.
The Tribunal found that none of the purchasers examined by the Department had admitted making cash payments to the assessee. In the absence of statements, receipts, diaries, or other incriminating material, the allegation of on-money remained unsubstantiated. The addition based on presumptions was therefore set aside.
