The ITAT held that for a builder following the project completion method, income arises on handing over possession and not merely on registration of sale agreement. The addition of entire sale consideration under Section 2(47) was ruled unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned during the year. It deleted both the additional disallowance and the assessee’s own mistaken disallowance.
The ITAT held that leasing hospital property to a group company did not violate Section 13 since trustees’ shareholding was below statutory limits. Denial of exemption under Section 11 and substitution of notional rent were ruled unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine foreign information sources amounted to violation of natural justice. Additions based on unverified documents were therefore invalid.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that registration under section 12AB cannot be refused based on apprehended future application of funds or possible violations. The Tribunal held that the authority must restrict examination to objects and genuineness of activities, restoring the matter for fresh consideration.
Tribunal sent back the matter to the AO to verify eligibility of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction based on Supreme Court guidelines regarding RBI licence status of the co-operative bank.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
