The Pune ITAT ruled that purchases cannot automatically be disallowed merely because suppliers failed to reply to notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh verification after considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Delhi ITAT held that activities relating to environmental protection, farming awareness, and sustainability education qualify under the preservation of environment limb of Section 2(15). The Tribunal ruled that such activities are not hit by the restrictive proviso applicable to general public utility cases.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed as invalid.
ITAT Mumbai observed that the charitable trust had filed its original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication of the exemption claim instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
The Supreme Court held that sureties cannot be burdened with liability for excess withdrawals allowed by the bank without their consent. However, guarantors remain liable for the original sanctioned loan amount covered by the guarantee.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be initiated after three years unless the alleged escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh. Since the disputed amount was only ₹7.10 lakh, the reopening was quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that expenditure on software licences, maintenance, database access and periodic upgrades is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that mere use of software does not create a capital asset or enduring ownership right.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extraordinary reasons. In absence of special circumstances, the penalty was restricted to the minimum prescribed rate of 30%.
