The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 143(3) is void ab initio when the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The absence of a valid jurisdictional notice vitiated the entire proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking guarantee fee is not justifiable since assessee doesn’t undertake any risk of profit or loss on the said transaction.
The Tribunal held that EIS paid to originators is not subject to TDS because the originator had not subscribed to PTCs and was not an investor. Since statutory conditions under Section 194LBC were not met, demand under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be allowed when not claimed in the original return of income. Section 80A(5) bars such belated claims raised for the first time before appellate authorities.
Tribunal held that rejection of the Project Completion Method was invalid as the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction under section 145(3). Income was directed to be recomputed under the method consistently followed by the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that adjournment based on pending comments from the Assessing Officer requires a definite timeline. It stressed orderly conduct and procedural fairness in handling multiple connected appeals.
The ITAT held that Section 43B applies even if interest is capitalised to work-in-progress instead of claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was justified in reducing WIP for unpaid interest to a Scheduled Bank.
ITAT Mumbai held that even a small stock discrepancy can attract Section 69A if unexplained. Lack of supporting evidence led to confirmation of addition.
The Tribunal held that redevelopment involved transfer of the entire immovable property, entitling the assessee to indexed cost on the full asset. Restricting indexation to 22.5% land share was ruled unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
