ITAT Ahmedabad held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh legal claims even if not made in the return of income. BSNL VRS-2019 compensation was held exempt u/s 10(10B), and rejection by CIT(A) was set aside.
ITAT Lucknow held that additions under Section 68 in search cases cannot be made without incriminating material found during search. Penny stock LTCG additions were deleted and departmental appeals dismissed.
ITAT Lucknow held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked without specifying what enquiries the AO failed to conduct. As the PCIT did not spell out such deficiencies, the revision order was quashed.
ITAT Lucknow held that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely due to incorrect section selection in the ITR. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine eligibility on merits after proper hearing.
The ITAT Raipur held that prior to 1 June 2015, there was no enabling provision under Section 200A to levy late filing fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns. The Tribunal ruled the demand for A.Y. 2013-14 unsustainable and deleted the levy.
ITAT Indore held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment proceedings where no advance tax obligation arises. The dismissal of appeal without examining merits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that Section 249(4)(b) applies only where advance tax was legally payable. In absence of taxable income and advance tax liability, dismissal of appeal was set aside and matter restored for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal held that scholarship granted in Indian Rupees to an Indian student for study abroad is not expenditure outside India and restored the 12AB registration application.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 143(2) issued by an ITO without jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 was invalid. The assessment was declared void ab initio, making the Revenue’s appeal infructuous.
