ITAT Kolkata held that professional fees for works related to acquisition of new unit or expansion of existing undertaking is governed by provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Thus, since there is a specific provision u/s. 35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
ITAT Chennai held that the excess payment over the net book value of assets and liabilities acquired on account of amalgamation is in the nature of ‘goodwill’ and is eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal ruled that reallocating management expenses to the profit and loss account under IRDA regulations does not violate law and therefore cannot justify disallowance under the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
ITAT ruled that mere endorsement stating “Yes, I am satisfied” does not constitute valid sanction under Section 151. Mechanical approval without independent application of mind invalidated the reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal emphasized that technical breaches cannot defeat genuine exemption claims under Section 11. The appellate order confirming CPC’s denial was reversed.
ITAT ruled that issuance of shares at premium does not automatically attract addition under Section 68. Proper documentation and lack of enquiry by the AO led to deletion of the addition.
