The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years was invalid since the alleged escaped income, after considering bank loan evidence, was below ₹50 lakh. The notice under section 148 and final assessment were quashed as time-barred.
ITAT Mumbai held that fair valuation loss on principal-protected debentures linked to NIFTY Index is not a contingent liability. The loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1).
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition in present case would be the FMV of the flats which the assessee has acquired in exchange of surrender of tenancy right to the developer. Accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal set aside a capital gains addition based solely on an unsigned digital MOU found in a third-party survey. It held that denial of document copies and cross-examination vitiated the assessment for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal held that scholarship granted in Indian Rupees to an Indian student for study abroad is not expenditure outside India and restored the 12AB registration application.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 143(2) issued by an ITO without jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 was invalid. The assessment was declared void ab initio, making the Revenue’s appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that exercising an option to convert warrants into shares does not amount to transfer under Section 2(47). Since no consideration was received and shares were not sold, no capital gain arose.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that actuarially valued provisions mandated by law constitute application of income under Section 11 and cannot be disallowed merely due to absence of cash outflow.
