ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
The ITAT held that reassessment following a search was valid because statements recorded during search constituted fresh tangible material. The ruling distinguished reassessment from a mere “change of opinion.”
Mumbai ITAT held that unsecured loans received through banking channels and fully recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A merely on suspicion. The addition and consequential interest disallowance were deleted in full.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely because a liability remains unpaid for a long period. In absence of any waiver, remission, or cessation of liability, the addition was rightly deleted.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation under Section 149. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment proceedings and assessment order.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to purchase of MHADA leasehold property rights despite reliance on Section 50C rulings. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to obtain a DVO valuation before recomputing the addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment should be considered where property consideration was fixed earlier and payments were made through banking channels before registration.
