The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
The Tribunal held that only unreconciled Form 26AS entries could be taxed while verified reimbursements deserved relief. It also ruled that godown rent already netted in business income could not be taxed again.
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
The Tribunal held that merely treating a claimed business loss as a speculative loss amounts to a change in head of loss, not under-reporting of income. Penalty under Section 270A was deleted as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is purely estimated. The ruling reinforces that estimation alone does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that once tax is deducted from an employee’s income, credit cannot be denied merely because the employer failed to deposit it. Section 205 bars recovery of such tax from the employee.
The Tribunal upheld depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The ruling confirms that excess consideration recognized as goodwill qualifies for depreciation under section 32.
