The Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption after the High Court condoned delay in filing Form 10B. It held that denial of relief due to technical lapse was unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
ITAT Mumbai quashed 143(3) order post-search, deleted ₹96.77L suppressed sales addition, allowed Sec 37(1) expenses & CWIP write-off as revenue in 153A assessment.
The Tribunal emphasized that technical breaches cannot defeat genuine exemption claims under Section 11. The appellate order confirming CPC’s denial was reversed.
The Tribunal ruled that rectification proceedings under Section 154 are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be a vehicle to dispute original additions. The appeal was therefore rightly rejected.
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search. The addition under Section 68 was annulled as jurisdiction was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that mere circulation of funds among group entities does not prove round-tripping unless supported by cogent evidence. Suspicion alone cannot justify addition under Section 68.
ITAT ruled that issuance of shares at premium does not automatically attract addition under Section 68. Proper documentation and lack of enquiry by the AO led to deletion of the addition.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
The ITAT Kolkata held that earnest money received under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which was later refunded through banking channels upon cancellation of the agreement, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
