The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly complied with statutory requirements by obtaining approval after modifying its objects. The CIT(E)’s finding of non-compliance was therefore contrary to the record. Renewal of registration was directed in the absence of any adverse findings on charitable activities.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases was warranted where contract receipts were accepted, substantial gross profit had already been disclosed, and there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.
Mumbai ITAT noted that the rejection of registration under Section 12AB solely due to the absence of an express irrevocability clause in the trust deed no longer survived after subsequent registration was granted.
Mumbai ITAT held that if part consideration for additional area was paid through banking channels before the agreement date, the assessee may claim the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x).
Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penalty initiation. Failure to comply with Section 144C renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
The Tribunal held that, apart from the CBDT clarification, the seller had declared the capital gains and discharged taxes. Therefore, the purchaser could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that actual rent received under genuine, registered agreements cannot be replaced with hypothetical market rent without cogent evidence of manipulation or unaccounted consideration. Since the Revenue failed to establish suppression of rent, the ALV addition was deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai held that gifts of shares completed before the introduction of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) could not be taxed under that provision. The ruling clarifies that subsequent procedural formalities cannot alter the original date of transfer.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, the entire amount of disputed purchases cannot be added to income. It directed the Assessing Officer to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases following settled judicial principles.
