The Tribunal held that an appeal filed before a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable and cannot be transferred. Liberty was granted to approach the correct Bench with a delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that EIS paid to originators is not subject to TDS because the originator had not subscribed to PTCs and was not an investor. Since statutory conditions under Section 194LBC were not met, demand under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be allowed when not claimed in the original return of income. Section 80A(5) bars such belated claims raised for the first time before appellate authorities.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A) s order holding that reassessment under Section 153A cannot stand without incriminating material seized from the assessee. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to compensation and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The appeal was allowed following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
Tribunal held that rejection of the Project Completion Method was invalid as the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction under section 145(3). Income was directed to be recomputed under the method consistently followed by the assessee.
Tribunal held that application software licences with limited duration and no ownership rights are revenue expenditure. It deleted the disallowance and ruled that remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an unsigned Excel sheet found during survey, without corroborative evidence, cannot justify addition for alleged cash payments.
