Addition of capital gain was deleted as impugned land being agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and having retained its agricultural character, was outside the ambit of “capital asset” under section 2(14)(iii) and therefore no capital gains could have been charged on transfer thereof.
The ITAT held that investments which did not generate exempt income during the year cannot be considered for Rule 8D disallowance. The ruling reiterates that only income-yielding investments are relevant for Section 14A computation.
The Tribunal held that the special tax regime under Section 115BBE is confined to additions made under Sections 68 to 69D. Additions arising under normal provisions of the Act cannot automatically attract higher taxation.
The Tribunal held that preference share capital cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit once the assessee establishes identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors. Documentary evidence and banking records were found sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 68.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source of funds is explained. Mere Client Code Modification information, without supporting evidence of tax evasion, is insufficient for making additions.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 revision was valid where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries into suspected bogus purchases. The ruling emphasizes that inadequate verification can render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
The ITAT Mumbai held that settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not extinguish the legal existence of a reassessment order. Limitation under Section 154 must therefore be computed from the reassessment order, making the rectification application maintainable.
The Tribunal held that business promotion and development expenses cannot be disallowed without concrete evidence establishing their non-genuineness. Mere assumptions and doubts are insufficient to deny legitimate business expenditure.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that investment in rights relating to a specific residential flat under a redevelopment project qualifies for Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that beneficial provisions should receive a liberal interpretation when substantial compliance is established.
Mumbai ITAT held that payments from accumulated income to institutions registered under Section 12AA attracted Section 11(3)(d). The Tribunal ruled that rectification under Section 154 was valid as the omission was a mistake apparent from the record.
