The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Security Receipt holders because the trust qualified as a revocable trust under Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Indore held that Section 50C could not be invoked where the difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was only 1.19%. The Tribunal directed adoption of actual sale consideration as the full value for capital gains computation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form 10-IE filed along with the return could not be ignored merely because it was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to recompute tax under the new tax regime.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form No. 10DA was filed late due to technical glitches on the income tax portal. The Tribunal noted that the form was available with CPC before processing the return.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
The ITAT Agra upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording reasons for dissatisfaction. The Tribunal reiterated that such satisfaction is mandatory before invoking Rule 8D.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated company that had ceased to exist was void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on settled law that jurisdictional defects involving non-existent entities cannot be cured under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment notices issued after expiry of the surviving limitation period under the amended reassessment regime were invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings and related penalties for both assessment years.
The Delhi ITAT held that belated filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural lapse and cannot extinguish substantive Foreign Tax Credit rights under sections 90/90A/91 and applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal directed verification and grant of FTC where the form was filed before completion of assessment proceedings.
