Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Se...
Income Tax : The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether share premium could be taxed without proof of unaccounted funds. The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vi...
The issue was whether interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition is exempt from tax. The Tribunal held that after the 2010 amendment, such interest is taxable as income from other sources, not exempt under section 10(37).
The tribunal examined whether reassessment could be initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee. It held that notices issued by an incorrect authority render the entire reassessment void.
ITAT Chennai held that since there was sufficient own funds to make investment/advances to its subsidiary, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted. Accordingly, AO directed to delete the addition.
ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Section 56(2)(vii). The case was remanded to AO for de novo verification, allowing the assessee to file further supporting documents.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Tribunal held that DCF valuation cannot be discarded merely because projections differ from actual results. AO’s failure to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer rendered the Section 56(2)(viib) addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty value must be taken as on the year of agreement when part consideration is paid through banking channels. Since the buyer paid in 2011 and received allotment in 2012, adopting 2017 stamp value was invalid. The ruling reaffirms strict application of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b).
Tribunal held that AO did not establish any defect in identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of share subscribers. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The ITAT found the AO’s valuation incorrect, emphasizing that FMV must be determined on the date of transfer, leading to the restoration of the long-term capital loss for the Assessee.
ITAT upholds deletion of Section 69 addition after remand verification showed property purchases were recorded as business stock. Ruling highlights that properly accounted stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as unexplained investment.
