The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because it was passed within four weeks of disposing of the assessee’s objections to reopening. Following Bombay High Court precedents, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessees claim for deductions under Chapter VI-A required factual verification rather than outright rejection. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining relevant documents and evidence.
ITAT held that a typographical mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause of Section 80P does not defeat a valid deduction claim. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to grant the full deduction where eligibility was otherwise undisputed.
The ITAT ruled that an assessment made after the assessees death was not void ab initio where jurisdiction had already been validly assumed before death. The matter was remanded for passing a fresh order in the name of the legal representative.
The assessee mistakenly filed its registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Tribunal held that such an inadvertent error warranted correction and fresh adjudication rather than rejection.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 154 to withdraw deduction on interest income from co-operative banks. Since the issue is subject to differing judicial interpretations, it falls outside the scope of rectification.
The Tribunal ruled that booking a residential flat and making substantial payments toward its acquisition can amount to a purchase for Section 54F purposes. Registration at a later date does not automatically defeat the exemption claim.
ITAT ruled that employees opting for the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 are entitled to full exemption under Section 10(10B) on retrenchment compensation. The decision rejects the view that exemption should be capped at ₹5 lakh under Section 10(10C).
The Tribunal observed that the trust had eventually filed Form 10 and sought condonation of delay. Since the issue was pending before the competent authority, the exemption dispute was restored for reconsideration.
ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be rejected merely because the Assessing Officer or Range Head did not recommend approval. The CIT(E) must independently examine the trust’s objects, activities, and legal compliance before arriving at a decision.
