ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subsequent years. The matter was remanded for verification because the assessee had not furnished complete creditor details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot impose independent or contingent conditions while granting registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal ruled that tax benefits could not be kept subject to the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court appeal.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same material already examined earlier. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a previously accepted claim.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had offered interest income to tax. These facts supported the genuineness of the transaction and rendered the Section 68 addition unsustainable.
Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation remained within 10% tolerance band. Tribunal ruled that safe harbour benefit applies once DVO valuation substitutes stamp duty value.
Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination through a DVO reference. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
