Assessments arising from searches conducted after 01.04.2021 must strictly comply with the reassessment framework under sections 147 and 148. Failure to adhere to statutory jurisdictional requirements, including mandatory approvals and satisfaction for use of third-party material, rendered the entire assessment void.
The ITAT ruled that an assessment made after the assessees death was not void ab initio where jurisdiction had already been validly assumed before death. The matter was remanded for passing a fresh order in the name of the legal representative.
Tribunal held that the differential amount between the levy price of sugar and the concessional price at which it was sold by a co-operative factory to its members and non-members constitutes an unallowable appropriation of profit to be added to business income, or a valid business practice could not be decided without examining the factual parameters mandated by the Supreme Court in Krishna Sahakari Karkhana Ltd.
The assessee mistakenly filed its registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Tribunal held that such an inadvertent error warranted correction and fresh adjudication rather than rejection.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 154 to withdraw deduction on interest income from co-operative banks. Since the issue is subject to differing judicial interpretations, it falls outside the scope of rectification.
The Tribunal ruled that booking a residential flat and making substantial payments toward its acquisition can amount to a purchase for Section 54F purposes. Registration at a later date does not automatically defeat the exemption claim.
ITAT ruled that employees opting for the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 are entitled to full exemption under Section 10(10B) on retrenchment compensation. The decision rejects the view that exemption should be capped at ₹5 lakh under Section 10(10C).
The Tribunal observed that the trust had eventually filed Form 10 and sought condonation of delay. Since the issue was pending before the competent authority, the exemption dispute was restored for reconsideration.
ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be rejected merely because the Assessing Officer or Range Head did not recommend approval. The CIT(E) must independently examine the trust’s objects, activities, and legal compliance before arriving at a decision.
The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for taking a contrary stand in later years after allowing the same deduction on identical facts in an earlier assessment. It held that such inconsistent treatment without distinguishing facts was unsustainable.
