The Tribunal noted that registration was denied due to failure to submit building and safety approvals. It remanded the matter, holding that a fair opportunity must be given before rejecting charitable registration.
The Tribunal upheld that ESOP discount is a valid business expense under Section 37(1), rejecting the view that it is notional or capital. The key takeaway is that ESOP costs are allowable as employee compensation.
The Tribunal held that updated returns filed during ongoing assessment proceedings are not valid under Section 139(8A). The key takeaway is that taxpayers cannot correct returns once scrutiny has begun, though limited relief may still be granted.
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 Tribunal validated reopening under Section 147 based on credible post-search information. Proper procedure under Section 148A was followed, making reassessment lawful.
The Tribunal held that member-based receipts may be exempt under the principle of mutuality. The matter was remanded to verify whether contributors and beneficiaries are identical.
The ITAT held that issuing a demand notice and penalty along with a draft order makes it a final order. Non-compliance with Section 144C rendered the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot make a fresh addition without issuing an enhancement notice. Cash redeposits from explained loan withdrawals were accepted as genuine.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
