ITAT Annual Digest 2025

Transactions Between Holding & Subsidiary For Issuance Of Shares Not Covered U/S 56(2)(viib) Of IT Act: Delhi ITAT Quashes Revision Against OYOCase Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CITCase Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions.Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary company) with its 100% holding company as issuance of share.'Entire Case Based On Records Already Considered During Scrutiny': Mumbai ITAT Quashes Reopening Of Assessment Against Shah Rukh Khan For AY 2012-13Case Title: Shah Rukh Khan vs Deputy CITCase Number: ITA No.6312/MUM/2024The Mumbai ITAT has quashed the reopening of assessment proceedings against the Assessee/ Appellant i.e., Shah Rukh Khan for AY 2012-13.The tribunal held that the reasons recorded while initiating the re-assessment, were completely silent as regards the allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.ITAT Exempts Tax On ₹1.5 Crore Granted By BCCI To Kapil Dev In Recognition Of His Services To CricketCase title: Kapil Dev Nikhanj v. ACITCase no.: ITA No. 1770/Del/2023The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi allowed renowned cricketer Kapil Dev to claim exemption on Rs. 1.5 crore one-time benefit granted to him by the BCCI in 2013, in recognition of his services.Noting that the cricketer had offered the amount for tax under ignorance, bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and MS Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) said, “It is trite law that right amount of tax should be collected from the right person in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax could be collected except by an authority of law. When a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee had offered erroneously in the return of income.”ITAT Extends Relief To Owners Of Taj Hotel Group, Sets Aside Reassessment Action Initiated Based On ED ReportCase title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2(2), MumbaCase no.: ITA No.5653/MUM/2011The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has granted relief to the Indian Hotels Company Ltd, which owns the Taj hotels chain and set aside an addition of ₹8,22,25,142/- made by the Assessing Officer to its declared income of ₹107,74,26,414/- for the AY 1998-99.The Tribunal quashed the reopening basis the incorrect invocation of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act since the original assessment had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the Assessee.ITAT Rejects Revenue's Appeal Seeking To Make ₹63.21 Billion Addition To DLF's Income For AY 2017-18Case title: DCIT v. DLF LimitedCase no.: I.T.A. Nos. 711/Del/2024The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the National Faceless Centre (CIT(A)), deleting aggregate ₹63,02,13,86,035 addition made to income of real estate giant DLF Limited on various counts, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.In its 82-page judgement, the Tribunal also disposed of the company's appeal against confirmation of addition made by CIT(A) on account of unverified purchase transactions, by remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh.Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITATCase Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Chennai v. M. MahadevanCase Number: ITA No.1824/Chny/2024The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai stated that transferor not liable under Section 56(2) Of Income Tax Act for undervalued property sale to spouse.The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that “the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It is true that the wife of the assessee has acquired a property for an amount significantly lower than its actual reported value. However, the said transactions would make the wife of the assessee liable for additional taxation within the meanings of Section-56(2). Stretching the transaction and implicating assessee into it does not appears to be the correct line of action”.S.148 Income Tax Notice Issued After 31.03.2021 Under Old Regime Invalid Despite TOLA Extension: ITATCase Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024The...

ITAT Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags