ITAT Mumbai held that the provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the said ground is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act have no applicability on conversion of Optionally Convertible Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares into equity shares. Accordingly, addition made by invoking section 56(2)(x) cannot be sustained. Thus, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
The ITAT Bangalore held that where incriminating documents relating to an assessee are found during a search conducted on another person, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3).
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 271FAA cannot be imposed mechanically where delay in filing the correction statement of financial transactions (Form 61A) is caused by genuine technical and administrative difficulties.
The ITAT Bangalore held that once an Order Giving Effect (OGE) is passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a second order for the same assessment year. The Tribunal declared the second OGE non-est and without jurisdiction, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer examined records and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement or desire for further enquiry is insufficient.
