The issue was whether sale of agricultural land attracts capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that land situated beyond prescribed municipal limits is not a capital asset. The key takeaway is that location plays a decisive role in taxability.
The issue was whether interest on FDRs qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal held that such income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. The key takeaway is that interest from cooperative institutions can qualify for exemption.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note can cover multiple assessment years under Section 153C. The Tribunal held that absence of year-wise satisfaction renders the proceedings invalid. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction requires specific satisfaction for each year.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C may not apply if properties are held as stock-in-trade. It remanded the case to verify whether transactions were part of real estate business.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed after the prescribed time limit is invalid. It ruled that limitation begins from the date DRP directions are uploaded on the ITBA portal.
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10AB cannot alone justify rejection of 80G approval. It directed reconsideration on merits, emphasizing genuine charitable activity over procedural lapses.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an unauthorized officer renders the entire assessment invalid. It ruled that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured and quashed the assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
ITAT held that CSR contributions can qualify for deduction under Section 80G if conditions are met. The ruling clarifies that there is no blanket prohibition on such claims under the law.
