The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be reopened on issues already examined earlier. It held that absence of fresh material and mere change of opinion renders reopening invalid.
ITAT Mumbai rules actuarial provisions for employee benefit schemes are allowable under Section 37(1) as ascertained liabilities, deletes major disallowances on expense provisions, limits TDS applicability to payment stage, and prevents double taxation of expenses.
ITAT Mumbai rules that Section 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income, directing AO to cap disallowance accordingly and delete excess addition, granting relief to assessee.
ITAT Mumbai holds reassessment invalid where approval under Section 151 was obtained from incorrect authority, ruling defect as jurisdictional and quashing notice under Section 148 and consequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose.
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reopening beyond 3 years where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, holding notice under Section 148 time-barred and invalid, thereby deleting consequential addition.
A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling highlights that documentation is crucial even for exempt transactions under tax law.
The issue was whether an excessive delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Tribunal allowed condonation but imposed costs, balancing justice with procedural discipline.
The law places the responsibility of TDS deduction on the buyer, not the seller. Failure to comply can lead to penalties, interest, and legal consequences.
