ITAT Mumbai holds that vague purpose in Form 10 can deny Sec 11(2) exemption, remanding case for verification of actual utilization and allowing assessee to substantiate specific charitable purpose.
The issue concerns repeated extensions of limitation periods for SCNs and orders under Sections 73 and 74. The framework shows timelines were shifted through notifications, with deadlines extending up to 2025 and beyond.
ITAT Mumbai rules redevelopment hardship compensation as capital receipt and deletes addition due to double taxation, granting relief where income was already taxed proportionately in later years.
ITAT held that once depreciation is allowed after scrutiny in the first year, it cannot be disallowed subsequently without fresh facts. The AO cannot revisit the same issue repeatedly. The key takeaway is that consistency must be maintained in tax assessments.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief. It held that Form 67 filed during rectification proceedings is valid compliance, allowing reconsideration of FTC claim.
The Tribunal condoned a 1394-day delay, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural lapses. It ruled that BSNL VRS compensation qualifies as exempt retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), allowing full tax relief and refund.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category not proposed in the show cause notice. It ruled that such reclassification violates settled legal principles and renders the demand invalid.
The Court held that the appellant was not given a chance to contest the legality of seizure. It ruled that such challenge must be permitted in confiscation proceedings to ensure fair hearing.
