With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
ITAT Mumbai held that development fees collected from passengers was earmarked for capital expenditure towards modernisation and development of airport infrastructure and therefore the same could not be treated as revenue income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in compliance with DRP directions cannot be revised under Section 263. It clarified that such orders are not erroneous as the Assessing Officer is bound by DRP’s binding instructions.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. Lack of participation led to confirmation of additions made by tax authorities.
ITAT Mumbai held that no TDS is liable to be deducted when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in the normal course of running of the restaurant/café. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Mumbai held that right to interest on refund is statutory right hence interest on delayed refunds arising from Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas [DTVSV] Act, 2020 is admissible. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible for claiming Initial Public Offer i.e. [IPO] expenses proportionate to the shareholding in terms of clause (i) of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
