The Tribunal ruled that a creditor’s write-off alone cannot trigger section 41(1) taxation. The assessee’s liability persisted in its books, and the ₹10.23 crore addition was deleted.
The tribunal ruled rental income from administrative buildings must be taxed under house property, not other sources, emphasizing consistent treatment across years. Key deductions for standard, sub-letting, and interest were allowed.
The Tribunal clarified that the institution existed solely for education and had no unrelated profit-oriented objects. Hence, the stricter test laid down in New Noble Educational Society did not apply.
The Tribunal admitted a gift deed filed for the first time before it, noting that the donor was no longer alive. The ₹26.36 lakh addition was remanded for verification of the deed and surrounding circumstances.
The Tribunal quashed the Assessing Officer’s action of taxing the entire purchase value after invoking Section 145(3). Only estimated profit embedded in such purchases, if higher than declared profit, can be brought to tax.
The Tribunal reiterated that tax authorities cannot impose notional income merely because interest could have been charged. Commercial decisions on interest-free advances lie with the assessee, not the assessing officer.
The ITAT found that Rule 8D cannot be applied blindly without examining the nature of investments and income earned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify whether investments were stock-in-trade and whether they yielded exempt income.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal in limine after the assessee failed to rectify signing and verification defects despite multiple opportunities. Signing of appeal documents was held to be foundational to maintainability.
The ITAT upheld deletion of a major share premium addition after finding that all investors complied with notices under Section 133(6) and furnished requisite documents. The ruling reiterates that once the three ingredients of Section 68 are satisfied, the burden shifts to the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that estimating closing stock without rejecting books or identifying defects is unsustainable. Mere assumptions of revenue leakage cannot justify additions.
