Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rather than 2% of turnover. The order emphasised consistency in estimation across assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned a 60-day delay after accepting explanations relating to migration of the ITAT portal and the death of a family member. The registration dispute was thereafter heard on merits.
The Tribunal held that leasehold rights transferred with land and building fall within the ambit of Section 50C. The matter relating to reassessment validity was sent back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that Form 3CL issued by DSIR could not be treated as additional evidence during rectification proceedings since it had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue for fresh quantification of deduction under Section 35(2AB).
ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subsequent years. The matter was remanded for verification because the assessee had not furnished complete creditor details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot impose independent or contingent conditions while granting registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal ruled that tax benefits could not be kept subject to the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court appeal.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same material already examined earlier. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a previously accepted claim.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had offered interest income to tax. These facts supported the genuineness of the transaction and rendered the Section 68 addition unsustainable.
