The Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay High Court regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(via). The matter was remanded for reconsideration after final disposal of the writ petitions.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of the outstanding demand.
The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-believe or accommodation entry transaction. The assessee’s regular trading history supported the genuineness of the transactions.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions exceeding ₹10.57 crore made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) after finding that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted an amended valuation approach retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion in entirety.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee following mercantile accounting must offer interest income to tax on accrual basis, irrespective of delayed receipt. Failure to disclose the full accrued amount in the relevant year justified reassessment and addition.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that replacing projected cash flows with actual profits while applying the DCF method is legally impermissible. The decision reaffirmed that DCF valuation is inherently based on future estimates and business expectations.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verification of alleged accommodation entries. Reliance solely on third-party investigation reports was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.
