The Tribunal condoned delay due to reasonable cause and addressed valuation mismatch. It remanded the issue for DVO-based reassessment. The ruling balances procedural leniency with substantive justice.
ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify addition without proper verification; ad-hoc expense disallowance reduced from 20% to 10%.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of gratuity without examining supporting evidence requires reconsideration. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication based on newly submitted documents.
The issue was whether addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on stamp value was justified despite conflicting private valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to obtain a DVO report and reconsider the addition as per law.
ITAT Bangalore remanded ₹49.43 lakh sundry creditor addition and ₹3.74 lakh TDS disallowance, holding that lack of proper evidence analysis and factual verification violated natural justice, requiring fresh adjudication by AO.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be imposed when notices were sent to an inaccessible hacked email. It accepted that delayed compliance had a reasonable cause. The ruling emphasizes fairness in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to specify a clear purpose in Form 10 invalidates accumulation claims under Section 11(2). However, it allowed reconsideration to verify actual utilization. The ruling highlights the need for precise disclosures.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules like Form 67 filing timelines are not meant to deny legitimate FTC. It directed the AO to grant credit after verifying evidence. The case highlights the primacy of DTAA provisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling clarifies that such action exceeds jurisdiction under Section 251 and must be addressed through other provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that holding investments capable of generating exempt income does not trigger Section 14A. Without actual exempt income, no disallowance can be made. This decision curbs automatic application of Rule 8D.
