ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Income Tax Act does not bar a trust from filing a fresh Section 80G application merely because an earlier rejection was not challenged. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after holding the “void-ab-initio” finding unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It observed that valuation is based on assumptions and future business expectations prevailing on valuation date.
The Nagpur ITAT held that exemption under Section 54B requires evidence of active agricultural operations and not merely agricultural classification in revenue records. The assessee’s failure to produce supporting evidence led to denial of exemption.
ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that goodwill arising from a High Court-approved amalgamation qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
