Mumbai ITAT ruled that retracted statements of a third-party transporter cannot justify additions without corroborative material. Detailed invoices, delivery challans, and proof of goods movement demonstrated genuine business expenses, resulting in dismissal of Revenue appeals.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, upholding judicial precedents and deleting Rs. 6.66 crore addition, emphasizing that hypothetical income cannot be taxed.
ITAT Chennai confirmed that section 234A interest is only compensatory and cannot be charged for periods when no tax remains outstanding. Full payment of self-assessment tax prior to the start of March 2022 negated any basis for levy.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving period, as clarified by Rajeev Bansal, are time-barred for AY 2015-16. The ruling emphasizes that procedural compliance with limitation periods is mandatory, even if notices are issued under unamended law.
ITAT Delhi held that a single Section 153D approval for multiple assessees and years is impermissible, rendering all 153A and 153C assessments void ab initio.
ITAT Delhi allowed travelling and visa expenses paid by assessee’s sons as wholly & exclusively for business purposes in overseas education consultancy. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural delay of 5 days should not defeat substantive justice, partly allowing the appeal.
ITAT Kolkata condoned an extraordinary delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that genuine and unavoidable reasons justify late filing, allowing the appeals to proceed for adjudication.
ITAT ruled that a Section 50C addition cannot stand without a DVO reference where market value is disputed. Matter remanded for fresh valuation and reconsideration.
The Court upheld the deletion of penalty under the Black Money Act after finding the wife was only a joint holder and the husband had fully disclosed the foreign asset. The ruling notes no substantial question of law arose.
Court ruled that FEMA summons issued under Section 37 operate within a civil-procedural framework and are not subject to gender-based safeguards under Section 160 CrPC. The key takeaway is that a woman cannot claim exemption from personal appearance in FEMA inquiries.
