The Tribunal held that delayed filing of Form 10-IC should not defeat the assessee’s substantive right to opt for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA. Since the intention to avail the lower tax rate was evident from the records, the benefit was allowed.
The Tribunal held that deduction of tax under Section 194J cannot automatically classify receipts as professional income. Tax authorities must independently examine the nature of services before denying the benefit of Section 44AD. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases was warranted where contract receipts were accepted, substantial gross profit had already been disclosed, and there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.
Mumbai ITAT noted that the rejection of registration under Section 12AB solely due to the absence of an express irrevocability clause in the trust deed no longer survived after subsequent registration was granted.
Mumbai ITAT held that if part consideration for additional area was paid through banking channels before the agreement date, the assessee may claim the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x).
Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penalty initiation. Failure to comply with Section 144C renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
The ruling emphasized that CAM charges remain separate transactions irrespective of whether payments are made to the same landlord or a different entity. TDS under Section 194C was held to be correctly deducted.
The Tribunal held that, apart from the CBDT clarification, the seller had declared the capital gains and discharged taxes. Therefore, the purchaser could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest to the date of refund determination under Section 143(1) was found to be incorrect.
