The tribunal ruled that reallocating management expenses to the profit and loss account under IRDA regulations does not violate law and therefore cannot justify disallowance under the Income-tax Act.
Bain & Company Vs D/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi arose from a final assessment order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a foreign company […]
The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 143(3) is void ab initio when the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The absence of a valid jurisdictional notice vitiated the entire proceedings.
ITAT Indore held that stamp duty valuation cannot be adopted without considering Section 50C(2)/(3). The matter was remanded for DVO reference and fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The decision emphasizes applying the enhanced limit even for earlier assessment years where judicial precedents support the claim.
ITAT Delhi held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act allowed since assessee is able to prove the nature of land as agricultural land based on revenue records and income tax return, wherein, income accepted as agricultural income.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking guarantee fee is not justifiable since assessee doesn’t undertake any risk of profit or loss on the said transaction.
ITAT Bangalore held that year-end expense provisions can attract TDS under the IT Act. The matter was restored for limited verification to determine liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The ITAT ruled that extensive repairs to a 25-year-old factory building were revenue in nature since no new asset or enduring advantage arose. The addition treating the expense as capital was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
