The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee could not prove the creditor’s identity, financial capacity, or the genuineness of the ₹50 lakh credit. Defective confirmation, NIL income of the creditor, and absence of source details weighed against the assessee. The ruling emphasizes that Section 68 requires clear, credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that deductions for donations cannot be denied due to later retrospective withdrawal of approval. Genuine donations made when the donee was approved retain tax benefits.
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
ITAT upheld rejection of books under Section 145(3) due to incomplete records but reduced estimated net profit from 8% to 2%. Historical profit trends guided a fairer assessment.
ITAT Delhi remands addition of ₹78.12 lakh under Section 68, allowing assessee to prove lessees’ agricultural use. Proper verification and opportunity are essential before denying Section 10(1) exemption.
Mumbai ITAT permits deduction under Section 57(iii) for ₹30.90 lakh interest paid on housing loan deployed to earn interest income. The ruling confirms that loan purpose, not its label, determines eligibility.
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.
