The Tribunal held that failure to specify a clear purpose in Form 10 invalidates accumulation claims under Section 11(2). However, it allowed reconsideration to verify actual utilization. The ruling highlights the need for precise disclosures.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules like Form 67 filing timelines are not meant to deny legitimate FTC. It directed the AO to grant credit after verifying evidence. The case highlights the primacy of DTAA provisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling clarifies that such action exceeds jurisdiction under Section 251 and must be addressed through other provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that holding investments capable of generating exempt income does not trigger Section 14A. Without actual exempt income, no disallowance can be made. This decision curbs automatic application of Rule 8D.
ITAT Bangalore quashed Section 263 revision, holding that AOs acceptance of FMV based on valuers report was a plausible view after enquiry and non-reference to DVO or non-initiation of penalty cannot render the order erroneous or prejudicial.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without examining detailed reconciliation and evidence. It remanded the case for fresh verification, emphasizing proper factual analysis.
The Tribunal held that strict correlation between withdrawals and deposits is not required under Section 69. It ruled that reasonable cash availability and explanation based on probabilities is sufficient.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest on bank deposits from operational funds of a co-operative credit society is eligible for deduction u/s 80P, as it is attributable to business activity; reliance on Totgars was held inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment relating to government service remains fully exempt under Section 10(10AA). It ruled that later absorption into a PSU does not change the nature of the benefit.
Section 54/54F deduction allowed by ITAT Bangalore despite incomplete documents, as substantive investment in house construction was proven through JDA, sample bills, and bank records-technical lapses cannot defeat genuine exemption claims.
