The ITAT Delhi held that an adjustment against excess contributions already made to an approved gratuity fund could not be disallowed under Section 40A(7). It also held that contributions to an approved gratuity fund are allowable under Section 40A(7)(b), resulting in deletion of the disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
The High Court found that withdrawal of garnishee notices and compliance with the CBDT Office Memoranda entitled the assessee to stay of recovery. It held the subsequent refund adjustments to be legally unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that the reassessment notice issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s decisions. The reassessment proceedings were quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully explained. It deleted the addition relating to royalty, commission, and technical service payments.
ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of 12A and 80G applications solely because of an incorrect statutory provision was unsustainable. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to allow rectification and decide the applications on merits.
ITAT Delhi restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer after noting that the related quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the penalty should also be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Gujarat High Court held that after considering the ledger entries correctly, the alleged escaped income was only ₹45 lakh, below the threshold under Section 149(1)(b). As the reopening was beyond the prescribed limitation, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey proceedings under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132. Court ruled that Section 96(a)(i) cannot be applied beyond its express wording.
