ITAT ruled that 5% tolerance for difference in stamp duty value and sale consideration applies retrospectively. This allowed assessee’s appeal against an addition under Section 56(2)(x).
ITAT ruled that Thane Zilla Vidyasevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on Rs. 94.12 lakh interest income earned from deposits in a co-operative bank. Tribunal affirmed that a co-operative bank is classified as a co-operative society for this deduction.
ITAT Mumbai allowed Saurashtra Cement’s appeal, ruling that disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D cannot be made if Assessee did not earn any exempt income during financial year. Ruling deletes an addition of ₹1.15 crore.
ITAT restricted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to 50% on a jointly purchased property, preventing double addition as the co-owner was already taxed on the balance.
ITAT restored a disallowance of ₹18.76 Cr under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194Q to CIT(A), granting assessee a fresh opportunity. Mumbai ITAT remanded a tax appeal concerning substantial business purchases, directing CIT(A) to hear assessee on merits for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable qualify as construction under Section 54 and are eligible for exemption.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by a Singapore company from its Indian affiliate for Regional Service Agreement (RSA) support are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or the DTAA. The Tribunal held that applying expertise for managerial and administrative services on a cost-sharing basis is a service, not the transfer of know-how.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.34.65 crore addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, ruling that requirement to prove source of source only applies from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. Tribunal held that proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan creditors was sufficient for year under appeal.
