The case addressed whether income can be corrected without filing a revised return. ITAT held that genuine computational errors can be rectified through revised computation during assessment. The ruling prioritizes accurate income over procedural technicalities.
The case examined whether CSR expenses can qualify for deduction despite Section 37 disallowance. ITAT held that Section 80G operates independently and allows deduction for eligible donations. The ruling clarifies dual treatment of CSR spending.
The case examined whether old share capital can be taxed due to ROC strike-off of a shareholder. ITAT held that Section 68 applies only to credits in the relevant year. The ruling clarifies that historical transactions remain valid.
The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Section 151 is jurisdictional and must be from the correct authority. The entire reassessment was quashed for non-compliance.
The case examines whether estimated expense disallowances can be made without rejecting books of account. ITAT held such additions invalid, emphasizing that Section 145(3) rejection is a prerequisite. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary disallowances.
ITAT Mumbai rules that Section 11(5) investment shortfall of earlier years cannot be taxed in the current year, holding amendment prospective. Only current year violation is taxable, restricting addition to ₹5 lakh and deleting ₹1.34 crore.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was based on already examined facts without fresh material. The ruling reinforces that reopening on mere change of opinion is not permissible.
ITAT held that section 249(4) cannot be invoked where no taxable income arises in India. Appeals must be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to obtain prior approval for loans is only a procedural lapse. It directed reconsideration of 12A registration after acknowledging genuine charitable activities.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be reopened on issues already examined earlier. It held that absence of fresh material and mere change of opinion renders reopening invalid.
