The Kolkata ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the reasons initially supplied related to a different company and the reopening was based on mechanical satisfaction. The Tribunal ruled that borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind cannot justify reopening under Sections 147 and 148.
The Tribunal ruled that once transfer was held to have occurred in 1993 through the sale agreement, the Assessing Officer could not tax capital gains in Assessment Year 2007-08.
The Tribunal held that accounting treatment in the Profit and Loss Account does not determine taxability of a receipt. Principal loan waiver remained non-taxable despite being shown as extraordinary income in accounts.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s argument that BSNL VRS payments were only voluntary retirement benefits. It held that the compensation fell within Section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation.
Mumbai ITAT held that discounts offered on gift cards and gift vouchers became an actual expenditure when the instruments were sold and could not be treated as contingent liability. The Tribunal allowed the deduction after noting that unutilised amounts were later offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did not bar consideration of the assessee’s agricultural land exemption claim.
Chennai ITAT held that variations between Insight Portal data and GSTR-2A could not automatically establish unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained without evidence of actual unrecorded expenditure.
The Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in a case involving deemed rental income addition. It observed that the legal position on the issue was debatable during the relevant assessment year.
For deduction on carbon credits, Section 80-IA deduction on the sale of CERs must be allowed; gains from the prepayment of deferred sales tax constituted capital receipts, meaning Commissioner’s relief required no interference.
The Delhi ITAT held that lack of knowledge of the assessment order constituted sufficient cause for delayed filing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
