The Tribunal ruled that an HUF, the beneficial owner of the income, cant be denied TDS credit just because the tax was initially shown in the Kartas PAN. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify subsequent compliance with Rule 37BA(2) and the updated Form 26AS to prevent the Revenues unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits during demonetisation, sourced from verifiable housing loan withdrawals, were explained and not unexplained income. Following the P&H HC, the ITAT held that the retention of cash for construction, even for a long time, doesnt justify the addition when the source is proven.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional AO lacked the legal authority to issue the Section 148 notice after the CBDTs notification mandating the Faceless AO. Since the foundation of the reopening was flawed, the subsequent additions of over ₹1.5 Crore were deleted, and the entire assessment order was quashed.
The appellate tribunal affirmed that the crucial factor for allowing full depreciation is that the seller had not claimed any depreciation on the assets transferred in the slump sale. The ruling confirms that meeting the 180-day use condition for assets, including acquired goodwill, fully satisfies Section 32(1) requirements.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded a reassessment case to verify the dispatch date of the Section 148 notice (speed post/email). The ruling, guided by the Delhi HC s Suman Jeet Agarwal case, states the date of delivery to the post office determines the notice’s validity.
The ITAT set aside the mechanical rejection of the Form 10AB application and the cancellation of the provisional 80G approval, emphasizing substance over form. The provisional approval remains valid until the CIT(E) passes a fresh order after verifying the trust’s charitable activities.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Capital Gains addition in AY 2016-17, ruling that conditional possession under a JDA for mere development is NOT transfer u/s 2(47)(v). Tax is due only when full possession is handed over, confirming taxability in AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that a generic, non-specific satisfaction note and the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee-company rendered the Section 153C proceedings invalid from the outset.1 Consequently, the entire assessment, including additions for commission income, was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s legal ground, holding that the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 153D was reduced to an empty formality. The ruling emphasizes that the approval must indicate due application of mind to the seized material and issues for each assessment year and cannot be a generic, consolidated format.
