Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
The ITAT held that an unsigned and unexecuted seized agreement cannot establish receipt of cash. The key takeaway is that additions under Section 69A require proof of actual receipt, not mere allegations.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
Delhi High Court held that the Initiating Officer has given reasons to believe as to how petitioner is a Benamidar. Further, writ is not admitted as petitioner has an efficacious remedy before Adjudicating Officer under Section 26 of the Benami Act.
The question was whether execution proceedings could extend to directors despite no findings against them. The Court ruled that directors cannot be bound in execution without pleadings, adjudication, and findings in the original proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO were valid after the faceless regime. ITAT held that post-notification, only the Faceless AO could act, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether the appellate order properly dealt with bogus purchase additions. ITAT held that a non-speaking NFAC order violating section 250(6) must be set aside.
The issue was whether depreciation can be claimed on BOT road projects. ITAT upheld depreciation, rejecting mere amortisation under the CBDT circular.
The issue was whether TDS credit can be denied when interest income is adjusted against capital work-in-progress. ITAT held that once income is indirectly recognised by reducing CWIP, corresponding TDS credit cannot be refused.
