Mumbai ITAT noted that the rejection of registration under Section 12AB solely due to the absence of an express irrevocability clause in the trust deed no longer survived after subsequent registration was granted.
Mumbai ITAT held that if part consideration for additional area was paid through banking channels before the agreement date, the assessee may claim the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x).
Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penalty initiation. Failure to comply with Section 144C renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
The ruling emphasizes that undisclosed business receipts and stock arising from an existing business cannot automatically be characterized as unexplained income. In the absence of evidence pointing to any other source, the income should be assessed under normal business provisions.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, the entire amount of disputed purchases cannot be added to income. It directed the Assessing Officer to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases following settled judicial principles.
The Tribunal held that section 50 merely prescribes a special method for computing gains on depreciable assets and does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Consequently, long-term capital losses were permitted to be set off against such gains under section 74.
The Tribunal ruled that the guideline value recorded in a registered document is not conclusive for computing capital gains if the assessee proves that a higher amount was genuinely paid. The decision underscores the importance of substantive evidence over mere recitals in the sale deed.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to properly apply the principles governing section 80P deductions relating to nominal members, statutory deposits, and co-operative society investments. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with settled law.
The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
