ITAT Mumbai holds that vague purpose in Form 10 can deny Sec 11(2) exemption, remanding case for verification of actual utilization and allowing assessee to substantiate specific charitable purpose.
ITAT Mumbai rules redevelopment hardship compensation as capital receipt and deletes addition due to double taxation, granting relief where income was already taxed proportionately in later years.
ITAT held that once depreciation is allowed after scrutiny in the first year, it cannot be disallowed subsequently without fresh facts. The AO cannot revisit the same issue repeatedly. The key takeaway is that consistency must be maintained in tax assessments.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief. It held that Form 67 filed during rectification proceedings is valid compliance, allowing reconsideration of FTC claim.
The Tribunal condoned a 1394-day delay, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural lapses. It ruled that BSNL VRS compensation qualifies as exempt retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), allowing full tax relief and refund.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
The issue involved eligibility of interest from employee loans. The tribunal ruled that such income is not directly linked to core credit activity. Therefore, it is taxable as income from other sources
The issue involved taxability of interest earned from statutory deposits. The tribunal held that such income is attributable to business activities and qualifies for deduction. This highlights the importance of statutory obligations in determining tax treatment.
The issue involved wrong filing of Form 10BB instead of 10B. The tribunal held that correction before processing cures the defect. This ensures that genuine claims are not denied on technical grounds.
The issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person is a searched person, making Section 153A applicable instead. Consequently, assessments under Section 153C were quashed for multiple years.
