The ITAT held that the assessee’s exclusion of income based on the Place of Effective Management provisions involved a bona fide and debatable legal issue. It ruled that such a claim could not be treated as misreporting under Section 270A.
The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intended to promote industrialisation, backward area development and employment, applying the Supreme Court’s purpose test.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 where the Assessing Officer has already conducted inquiries and applied his mind to the disputed issues.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income, attracting the bar under Section 80A(5).
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income as required under Section 139 and Section 80A(5).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant Foreign Tax Credit, observing that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural requirement and does not extinguish the substantive claim.
The ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While the AO may examine the DCF valuation, he cannot discard it and adopt the NAV method on his own.
The Tribunal held that contradictory third-party statements and unverified allegations cannot form the sole basis for taxing alleged on-money transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
