The Tribunal held that subscription to preference shares cannot be re-characterized as loans in absence of evidence showing sham transactions. Notional interest addition was deleted.
The case involved addition of share sale proceeds treated as bogus based on investigation reports. The Tribunal held that no direct evidence linked the assessee to manipulation. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and demat channels cannot be disregarded without proof.
Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The issue was whether the assessment order could be revised for lack of inquiry. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and taken a view, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal examined whether foreign assignment salary credited in India is taxable. It held that salary for services rendered outside India is not taxable, even if received in India.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
ITAT held that entire receipts cannot be treated as unexplained when income is already offered to tax. Only unverifiable expenses can be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority cannot go beyond the issue of TDS credit in a section 143(1) appeal. By directing taxation of entire salary, it effectively enhanced income without proper jurisdiction. The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The issue was whether reassessment was valid without proper service of mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh examination, holding that the jurisdictional issue requires reconsideration.
