The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
The ITAT Mumbai canceled seven revisionary orders under section 263, ruling that for completed (unabated) assessments under section 153A, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot make additions or disallowances, such as challenging an 80IC deduction, without finding incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the PCIT’s power under $s.263$ cannot be used for a mere roving inquiry.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that government incentives to promote industrial development in disaster-hit Kutch and modernization under TUF scheme are capital receipts. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, reaffirming purpose test from Ponni Sugars and Sahney Steel.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of third party statement substantiated with tangible material is justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) with liberty to assessee to place supporting documents explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gains cannot be treated as unaccounted income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since AO nowhere proved that assessee himself was involved in price rigging of any of the scrips. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands allowed.
ITAT ruled that interest on loans cannot be disallowed when the AO accepts the loan principal is genuine by dropping an addition proposed under Section 68 of the Act. which deleted a Rs 3 lakh interest disallowance after the tax officer admitted the underlying loans were genuine.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai allowed a Rs.109.73 Cr relief, ruling that payments for centralized support services like HR and IT are not taxable as FTS or Royalty under India-Belgium DTAA. court held that these routine corporate activities lacked element of transferring technical knowledge or expertise.
ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling the AO failed to levy the correct charge (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars), making the penalty unsustainable. finding the AO charged the assessee with concealment of income when the facts indicated furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
