Tribunal holds that leave encashment is fully exempt as the updated CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies. The rectification restricting exemption to ₹3 lakh was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced ₹25-lakh limit under section 10(10AA) must be applied based on earlier co-ordinate bench rulings. The key takeaway is that restriction to ₹3 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that interest received on enhanced compensation is nothing but compensation and hence for the interest received was eligible for exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that an assessment under section 143(3) is invalid if the section 143(2) notice does not comply with CBDT prescribed formats. The ruling nullifies both the assessment and related revisionary proceedings.
ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be applied automatically under section 14A; the AO must record satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee’s suomoto disallowance, quashing the incremental disallowance.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
The issue was whether failure to deposit unutilised capital gains in CGAS before the due date defeats Section 54B relief. The ITAT held that where eligible agricultural land is purchased within time and cheques are issued with sufficient balance, CGAS non-deposit is only procedural. Full exemption was therefore allowed.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
The Tribunal held that building construction for future educational use qualifies as charitable activity. The rejection of 80G approval solely due to absence of active operations was ruled unjustified.
The Tribunal held that a charitable trust’s 80G application rejected for late filing must be reconsidered after the trust seeks condonation under Section 119(2)(b). Procedural delay should not defeat substantive rights.
