Tribunal held that the enhanced leave encashment limit of ₹25 lakh, notified by CBDT on 24 May 2023, applies retrospectively to non-government employees. The assessment order was set aside, granting full exemption benefit to the retired SBI officer.
Upholding the CIT(A)’s decision, the ITAT confirmed that the charitable trusts claim for exemption on ₹2.45 crore application of income could not be denied. The ruling establishes that the registration granted under Section 12AA, even if initially delayed, holds legal force for the current assessment year, nullifying the AOs attempt to tax voluntary contributions.
ITAT quashes Rs.8.8 Cr penalty u/s 271G on Atul Ltd.. Penalty applies for non-furnishing TP docs, not for TPO’s rejection of the assessee’s benchmarking method. Cites Delhi HC precedent.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.
The Tribunal found the tax addition in the Dulu Mahato case unsustainable. The AO failed to refer the property renovation valuation to the DVO and ignored evidence of joint investment by all co-owners.
The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.
The ITAT Pune set aside the CIT(A)’s order that had restricted a bogus purchase addition of ₹2.53 crore to a 12.5% profit element. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure the application of the binding ruling from the jurisdictional Bombay High Court regarding 100% disallowance in hawala purchase cases.
Relying on binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order as legally invalid because the PCIT failed to bring the legal heir on record before passing the order. The ruling firmly establishes that an income tax order passed against a dead person is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
