The tribunal held that government support includes capital grants, land, and infrastructure, not just recurring funding. This broader interpretation justified exemption eligibility.
ITAT held that delay in submitting Form 10B is procedural and can be condoned. It directed reconsideration of exemption where the audit report was filed during appellate proceedings.
The case examined if failure to conduct audit permits arbitrary profit estimation. The ITAT ruled that absence of audit alone cannot justify 8% estimation when books are maintained and not rejected.
The case involved addition for alleged on-money payment based on search findings of a builder. The ITAT ruled that absence of corroborative evidence and denial of cross-examination makes the addition unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on the ground that the payment also formed part of CSR expenditure under the Companies Act.
The Tribunal held that filing return after due date does not disqualify deduction under section 80P for AYs prior to 2018. It ruled that denial on this ground was incorrect and required rectification.
The case involved Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(d for failure to comply with notices during assessment. The Tribunal ruled that completion under section 143(3) negates the basis for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on third-party software data was invalid as the material was not provided to the assessee. Denial of cross-examination was found to violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The tribunal held that the safe harbour limit applies to valuation determined by the DVO, not just stamp duty value. It ruled in favour of the assessee as the variation was within 10%.
