ITAT Kolkata partially allows appeal for Sukumar Solvent, slashing additions. Tribunal ruled only the 12% profit margin on excess stock is taxable and that TDS on freight is not required if PAN is provided by the transporter.
ITAT Hyderabad ruled that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) doesn’t trigger Capital Gains Tax u/s 2(47)(v) when possession isn’t legally delivered, relying on SC/HC precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that the addition, based on uncorroborated loose papers and rough jottings, was invalid. The decision followed a similar ruling in a co-partner’s case, establishing that such evidence without independent verification cannot be the sole basis for taxation.
ITAT Jaipur ruled that merely possessing registered property deeds cannot be treated as incriminating material under Sections 153A/153C of Income Tax Act.
Income surrendered during survey and accounted as business income should not attract section 115BBE rates, clarifying application of sections 69, 69A, and 69B.
Cochin ITAT rules that only essential expenses like plumbing and electrical works qualify for deduction under Section 54F, while luxury interiors such as modular kitchens, wardrobes, and ACs are not eligible. Partial relief granted.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that an Indian employee’s salary for services rendered in the US is not taxable in India, upholding the India-US DTAA and clarifying that the place of service, not receipt, determines taxability.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.30.5 lakh addition, ruling the loan was genuine and supported by bank records, while upholding the reopening of the assessment.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 21.66 crore addition to a taxpayer’s income, ruling that the Assessing Officer illegally expanded the scope of a limited scrutiny. The Tribunal also held that the purchase and reconstruction of an old house qualifies for tax exemption under Section 54F.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under Section 270A cannot be automatically imposed for an addition made under the deemed provisions of Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal quashed a penalty on a taxpayer who purchased property below stamp duty value, stating such additions do not constitute under-reporting of income.
