The Mumbai ITAT held that taxability cannot be conclusively decided while an application for exemption under Section 10(46) remains pending before the CBDT. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the CBDT’s final decision.
The Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot pass two reassessment orders for the same assessment year, same transaction, and same addition. The first reassessment proceedings were held legally unsustainable.
The Mumbai ITAT reaffirmed that lease rentals from SEZ and IT Parks along with amenities are taxable as business income. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 and multiple judicial precedents supporting taxpayers.
The Mumbai ITAT held that donations made as part of CSR expenditure can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 37 does not prohibit relief under Chapter VI-A.
The Bangalore ITAT held that revision proceedings under Section 264 are intended to provide relief to taxpayers and cannot worsen their position. The Tribunal struck down an enhanced addition made after remand proceedings during demonetisation cash deposit verification.
The Bangalore ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot estimate additional profit merely due to a fall in net profit ratio when books of account are not rejected. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion over self-made vouchers without concrete evidence cannot justify arbitrary additions.
The Bangalore ITAT held that once a notice under Section 143(2) initiates regular scrutiny assessment, the Department cannot subsequently resort to summary processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal quashed massive GST-related adjustments as being without jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that courts must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and reject suits that indirectly seek enforcement of prohibited benami transactions. The ruling strengthens Order VII Rule 11 CPC as a safeguard against sham and legally barred litigation.
The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically become unenforceable merely because the purchaser failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be invoked merely to recover disputed dues arising from contractual transactions.
