Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It observed that valuation is based on assumptions and future business expectations prevailing on valuation date.
The Nagpur ITAT held that exemption under Section 54B requires evidence of active agricultural operations and not merely agricultural classification in revenue records. The assessee’s failure to produce supporting evidence led to denial of exemption.
ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that goodwill arising from a High Court-approved amalgamation qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
ITAT Delhi held that the amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) applies prospectively from 01.04.2021. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill for earlier assessment years following judicial precedents.
The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey statements or AO findings. The Tribunal ruled that the AO and DRP exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning deductions already certified in Form 3CL.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangible material were invalid. The Tribunal ruled that such reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advances received from flat purchasers in the ordinary course of a real-estate business cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal ruled that such advances were genuine business liabilities regularly adjusted against sales.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery expenses as perquisite under Section 17(2) were not satisfied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
