The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The ITAT Indore held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot survive where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) after considering the taxpayer’s delayed submissions, as such compliance effectively condones earlier defaults.
The Tribunal ruled that a bona fide technical mistake in selecting the wrong section code while applying for registration cannot lead to rejection of the application. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) for reconsideration on merits.
ITAT Indore held that stamp duty valuation cannot be adopted without considering Section 50C(2)/(3). The matter was remanded for DVO reference and fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The decision emphasizes applying the enhanced limit even for earlier assessment years where judicial precedents support the claim.
ITAT Indore held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment proceedings where no advance tax obligation arises. The dismissal of appeal without examining merits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that denial of foreign tax credit during return processing was improper where Form 67 and the return were filed together. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow credit.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
