The Cochin Bench held that the minimum one-acre condition must be satisfied by the land comprising the approved housing project itself. It ruled that unrelated land or structures cannot be included to claim deduction under Section 80-IB(10).
ITAT Kolkata held that appellate authority should have awaited outcome of pending condonation application before deciding exemption claim. Matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after considering competent authority’s decision.
ITAT Kolkata held that once a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is issued, CPC cannot process the return under Section 143(1) and quashed the intimation.
Raj Krishan Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, partly allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal involved denial of deduction under Sections 54/54F, addition under Section 56(2)(vii), and disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee […]
The ITAT deleted an addition relating to an NRE account after finding that the credits were linked to overseas salary remittances and lacked evidence of unexplained income. It remanded the larger addition for fresh verification due to inadequate SFT reconciliation.
The ITAT held that Section 154 cannot be used to examine issues requiring detailed inquiry, and therefore quashed the rectification seeking disallowance of directors’ bonus. The appeal was allowed.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. Having quashed the reassessment on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the Section 68 addition.
The ITAT Delhi held that an omnibus satisfaction note without identifying year-wise incriminating material or its relevance to the assessee’s income cannot sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The assessments were consequently quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT Delhi held that dumpers used in manufacturing and mining operations are part of plant and machinery and qualify for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia). It ruled that actual use, and not merely road-going capability, determines eligibility.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment initiated by an Assessing Officer without pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 is invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
