In a landmark ruling on reassessment jurisprudence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed a reassessment order initiated four years after original assessment, holding it was based on ‘mere change of opinion’ via an audit objection, lacking fresh tangible material. The Court reinforced the Kelvinator principle that Section 147 cannot be used for review. It allowed the assessee’s claim for expenditure against interest income from share application money, affirming the direct nexus. This judgment underscores the sanctity of finality in assessments and limits revenue’s power to reopen without new evidence.

In this landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court clarifies the scope of ‘agricultural income’ under the Income Tax Act 1961, denying exemption to a timber trader who derived income from latex tapping. The Court held that mere exploitation of standing trees without performing basic agricultural operations does not constitute agriculture. This decision reinforces the principle that agricultural income exemptions are strictly limited to revenue from genuine agricultural activities involving cultivation of land, preventing unwarranted extensions to commercial contracts. It underscores the distinction between agricultural and business income, with significant implications for taxpayers in plantation and forestry sectors.

In this landmark ITAT Bombay decision, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue’s appeal, delineating critical boundaries for business expenditure deductions and advance tax interest. Key rulings: (a) Bonus payments exceeding the Payment of Bonus Act’s statutory minimum are not deductible under Section 36(1)(ii) if the liability crystallizes via post-accounting-year agreement, reinforcing the accrual principle in mercantile accounting. (b) Remuneration to employee-directors falls under Section 40(c), not Section 40A(5), aligning with prevailing Special Bench jurisprudence. (c) Interest under Section 214 is payable on all advance tax payments made within the financial year, even if delayed, provided the Revenue accepts them as such, but appealability on this issue requires procedural validation. This judgment underscores the interplay between contractual and statutory liabilities in tax deductions and the Revenue’s accountability in tax administration.

In Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Mumbai ITAT dismissed the revenue’s appeal, upholding the deletion of Rs. 2.07 crore addition under Section 68 for share capital/premium. The Tribunal reinforced the settled legal position under Section 68: an assessee must prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions to discharge its primary onus. Here, the assessee provided PANs, IT returns, bank statements, and confirmations from investor companies, satisfying all three criteria. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee is not required to prove ‘source of source’ and that the revenue failed to rebut the evidence with cogent material. The decision aligns with Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including Lovely Exports and NRA Iron & Steel, and clarifies that the 2012 proviso to Section 68 is not retrospective. The ruling underscores the importance of factual documentation in defending cash credit additions and limits revenue’s ability to make additions without disproving the assessee’s evidence.

In this landmark judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court definitively settled the retrospective application of the first proviso to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Court, dismissing the Revenue’s reference application, upheld the Tribunal’s view that the 1987 amendment was clarificatory and procedural. It established a crucial precedent that explanatory provisions curing defects in the original law apply retrospectively, thereby allowing assessees to claim deductions for payments made by the due date of filing returns for assessment years prior to 1st April 1988. This decision reinforces the principle that declaratory amendments affecting procedure, not substantive rights, relate back to the inception of the parent provision.

In this consolidated judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, addressed key tax disputes for AY 2007-08 and 2014-15 involving M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (now Trident Limited). The Tribunal emphasized procedural fairness by restoring issues like capital vs. revenue expenditure for electric lines and disallowances under sections 80IA and 36(1)(iii) to the CIT(A) for detailed, speaking orders. It upheld the assessee’s position on MAT credit, directing adjustment before surcharge and cess based on judicial precedents, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on section 14A, reinforcing that no disallowance applies absent exempt income. The decision highlights the importance of evidentiary support and adherence to established legal principles in tax assessments.

In a significant ruling on the tax treatment of retention money in construction contracts, the Kolkata ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that retention money does not accrue as income merely because TDS was deducted under section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of ‘real income’ and contractual contingencies, ruling that accrual requires a vested right to receive, which arises only upon fulfillment of contract conditions like project completion and certification. The assessee’s revised return to exclude such money was upheld. Additionally, the Tribunal reaffirmed that section 14A disallowance cannot apply in the absence of exempt income. This judgment provides clarity on the interplay between TDS provisions and income accrual, favoring assessees in similar contractual arrangements.

This landmark ITAT Ahmedabad judgment clarifies two critical tax positions: (1) Depreciation eligibility for assets received upon partnership dissolution without registered transfer, affirming that partnership law overrides registration requirements for capital contributions, and (2) TDS obligations of specific trusts, establishing that trusts with individual beneficiaries are exempt from section 194A deduction duties. The decision reinforces the principle that partnership assets are movable property and dissolution allotments aren’t transfers, providing crucial precedent for family businesses and trust taxation.