The Tribunal condoned delay after finding reasonable cause and examined the merits of the case. It held that no capital gains arise where purchase and sale consideration are identical.
The Tribunal held that no double deduction was claimed as the provision was already added back in computation. The addition was deleted for being based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the appeal solely due to delay without examining merits was not justified. It condoned the delay and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify evidence relating to alleged accommodation entries. The matter was remanded for fresh examination and a reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10-IC does not invalidate the option exercised under Section 115BAA if declared in the return. It ruled that the requirement is procedural, not mandatory. The decision ensures substantive tax benefits are not denied due to technical lapses
The Tribunal rejected appeals filed by the assessee s father despite claims that the assessee was untraceable. It clarified that absence of the assessee does not authorize relatives to file appeals. Legal standing is mandatory for invoking appellate jurisdiction.
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments under Section 143(1) cannot be made without issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer. As CPC failed to provide such notice or reasons, the adjustment and resulting demand were set aside.
