The ITAT Mumbai held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory timeline prescribed under Section 144C(13) after receipt of the DRP’s directions. It declared the assessment void ab initio and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The ITAT Delhi held that the final assessment order was time-barred as it was passed beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 144C(13). The Tribunal ruled that internal departmental communications could not extend the statutory limitation and quashed the assessment.
The ITAT held that payments made to directors represented arranger fees and not prohibited sub-brokerage under SEBI Regulations. It deleted the entire disallowance under Section 37(1), finding no violation of law.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income and issue the refund due to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in sustaining the addition once the assessee substantiated the source of the cash deposited. The Tribunal accepted the documentary evidence and deleted the addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal ruled that ignoring the assessees additional evidence, including the registered valuers report, vitiated the appellate proceedings. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment in accordance with law.
The Tribunal ruled that loss of an old Section 12A registration certificate is only a procedural deficiency and cannot by itself justify rejection of a Section 12AB application. The matter was remanded for verification of departmental records.
The ITAT observed that registration undertaken solely to satisfy a banks mortgage requirement cannot automatically attract tax under Section 56(2)(x). It restored the matter for fresh examination of the true nature of the transaction.
The ITAT held that the incorrect payment date mentioned in the Tax Audit Report was an obvious typographical mistake and not evidence of delayed PF payment. The issue was remanded for limited verification, with the deduction to be allowed upon confirmation of the challans.
