S.198 r.w.s. 199 r.w.r. 37BA – “Unrealized rent” was offered to tax under “income from house property” and then deducted u/s 23(1) r.w.r. 4. “Unrealized rent” is a deduction and not exemption. Hence, claim of TDS on such amount is allowable as it falls under the same category as ss.80IA/IB/IC.

[Shri Rangji Realties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – ITA No.6119/Mum/2016 – Date: 09.06.17 – Mumbai ITAT]
S.71(1), 28 & 69 – As per S.71(1), “Business loss” can be set-off against “unexplained income u/s 69” (taxable as “Income from other sources”). Here, the concerned business loss as well as unexplained income emanated from the very same undisclosed bank statement.

[Ghanshyam K. Kevadia vs. ITO – ITA No.1580/Ahd/2013 – Date: 18.04.17 – Ahmedabad ITAT]
S.68 – Assessee received gift from NRI family friend in the form of “India Millennium Certificate.” Assessee satisfied genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the donor and gift was made through banking channel. CIT(A) made addition on the ground that there was no blood relation and occasion to receive such a huge gift and donor was not present before AO & CIT(A) for verification. Held, assessee satisfied all criteria and department failed to demonstrate with ample evidence why contention of assessee was disbelieved. Addition was deleted.

[Baldev Singh vs. DCIT – ITA No.2471/Del/2014 – Date: 08.06.17 – Delhi ITAT]
S.28 & 43(5) - Loss arising on account of cancellation of foreign exchange contracts entered into in the regular course of business in order to hedge the probable loss on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange rates is to be treated as “business loss” and not “speculation loss”.

[ACIT vs. M/s. Veer Gems – ITA 1723/Ahd/2011 – Date: 25.04.17 – Ahmedabad ITAT]
S.23(1)(a) – Revenue rejected rent as being less than other flats in the building. Held, rejection is not permissible on mere doubt or suspicion, unless there is material that the rent is not at FMV, fraud is established or collusion or an attempt is made by the parties to inflate or deflate the rent.

[ITO vs. Sudheer Omprakash Bahl – ITA No.2319/Mum/2017 – Date: 09.06.17 – Mumbai ITAT]
S.271AAA – Penalty u/s 271AAA can be levied only in the hands of the person subject to search u/s 132. ITAT rejected the argument that survey of firms u/s 133A and statement of assessee-partner u/s 131 was an extension of the S.132 search even though assessee was named in S.132 statement.

[Shri Roop Kishanchand Khemani vs. ACIT – ITA No.3943/Mum/2015 – Date: 03.05.17 – Mumbai ITAT]
S.263 – When assessment order passed u/s 147 is illegal, CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 against such void or non-est order. It is open for an assessee in appeal against order u/s 263, which seeks to “revise” an order passed u/s 147, to challenge the validity of order passed u/s 147 and so also initiation of proceedings u/s 147.

[Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT – ITA No.764/Kol/2014 – Date: 05.04.17 – Kolkata ITAT]
S.254(2) – A mistake apparent from record is not only in the acts of an authority; even “wrongful inertia” of a judicial authority is a mistake apparent on record and Tribunal must exercise its power to rectify the same.

[Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – MA No.78/Ahd/2016 – Date: 02.06.17 – Ahmedabad ITAT]
S.45 – Where pending dispute is for claim of credit amount paid to purchaser of flat by the society instead of assessee-seller, he is liable for capital gain tax especially because he has received full consideration, possession has been transferred and he never challenged transfer deed before HC.

[Bhupendra D Goradia vs. ITO – ITA No.3011/Mum/2014 – Date: 26.05.17 – Mumbai ITAT]
S.40A(3) – Payments in cash for purchase of stamp papers is covered under the exception provided under Rule 6DD(b) and hence, no disallowance is called for u/s 40A(3) in respect of the same.

[M/s. Shiv Build India vs. JCIT – ITA No.3128/Ahd/2013 – Date: 16.03.17 – Ahmedabad ITAT]
Showing Records 1 to 10 of Total 387