The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The Tribunal held that audit under section 44AB depends on turnover, not taxability of income. Exempt entities must still comply if limits are exceeded.
DCIT Vs Revanth Challagalla (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 54F Allowed Even When Property Purchased in Sister’s Name – Subsequent Gift Validates Claim In this case, the ITAT Hyderabad upheld the allowance of deduction under Section 54F despite the property being initially registered in the name of the assessee’s sister. The assessee, an NRI, had sold villas […]
The tribunal held that the holding period of the previous owner must be included when property is acquired through inheritance or trust devolution. As a result, gains were treated as long-term and exemption under Section 54EC was allowed, while Section 54 was remanded for verification.
The case involved addition of share sale proceeds treated as bogus based on investigation reports. The Tribunal held that no direct evidence linked the assessee to manipulation. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and demat channels cannot be disregarded without proof.
The case involved denial of deduction due to delayed execution of purchase deed. The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction property qualifies as construction within the extended time limit. It ruled that deduction cannot be denied on technical interpretation of timelines.
Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The Tribunal examined whether foreign assignment salary credited in India is taxable. It held that salary for services rendered outside India is not taxable, even if received in India.
