ITAT Delhi held that the amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) applies prospectively from 01.04.2021. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill for earlier assessment years following judicial precedents.
The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey statements or AO findings. The Tribunal ruled that the AO and DRP exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning deductions already certified in Form 3CL.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangible material were invalid. The Tribunal ruled that such reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advances received from flat purchasers in the ordinary course of a real-estate business cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal ruled that such advances were genuine business liabilities regularly adjusted against sales.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery expenses as perquisite under Section 17(2) were not satisfied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the use of the word may in Section 271AAC gives discretionary power to the Assessing Officer and does not mandate automatic penalty levy. It emphasized that such discretion must be exercised judiciously.
The ITAT held that the institution’s activities as a seminary imparting religious training to priests established its religious character. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration of registration as a religious trust under Section 12AB.
The ITAT held that teaching Arabic language and Islamic studies through systematic instruction amounts to education and not religious activity. It directed grant of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.
