Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments under Section 143(1) cannot be made without issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer. As CPC failed to provide such notice or reasons, the adjustment and resulting demand were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The tribunal ruled that remuneration paid to a working partner cannot be disallowed when the partnership deed authorizes such payment and the amount is within limits prescribed under Section 40(b).
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Raipur held that the assessee had already disclosed the sale of the old car in the return of income and paid tax on the profit from the transaction. Since the sale consideration and profit were recorded and taxed, the Tribunal noted that there was no loss to the Revenue.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the rejection of 12A registration, holding that the applicant should be given another opportunity to submit documents proving the genuineness of charitable activities.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer should refer the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares after holding them for nearly ten years could not be treated as a bogus penny stock transaction due to lack of evidence of manipulation.
