The Tribunal held that the ex gratia received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 qualified for exemption under Section 10(10B) and not Section 10(10C), following earlier Coordinate Bench decisions. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption after verification of the revised computation.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While the AO may examine the DCF valuation, he cannot discard it and adopt the NAV method on his own.
The Tribunal held that contradictory third-party statements and unverified allegations cannot form the sole basis for taxing alleged on-money transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
The ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made necessary inquiries and adopted a plausible view. It quashed the revision order after finding no lack of investigation into the related-party transaction.
The ITAT held that BSNL employees are entitled to full exemption under Section 10(10B) for compensation received under the 2019 VRS scheme. The Tribunal rejected the view that exemption should be restricted to ₹5 lakh under Section 10(10C).
The ITAT ruled that approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner is mandatory for reopening assessments beyond three years. Since approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that tax demand cannot be raised against an employee where TDS was deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer. The decision reiterates the protection available under Section 205 of the Income-tax Act.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the addition alleging bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions after finding no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry.
The Mumbai ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be sustained where income is determined purely on estimation after rejection of books. It also ruled that a show-cause notice failing to specify whether the penalty is for under-reporting or misreporting of income is legally defective and invalid.
