Once the Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice u/s 148 and all consequential proceedings, the Revenue’s challenge to deletion of deduction u/s 80IB(10) becomes purely academic.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received for grant of non-exclusive broadcasting rights of feature films cannot be termed as “royalty” within the parameters of “royalty” as defined in Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order set aside.
The Tribunal held that CSR contributions received with strict donor directions and refund obligations may constitute tied-up grants rather than freely available income. Such funds require factual examination before taxing them under section 11.
The Tribunal held that deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed mechanically based on past relief. Each infrastructure project must be independently examined to determine whether it qualifies as development or is merely a works contract.
The Tribunal ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
The Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan additions where the appellate authority independently examined lender details. The key takeaway is that CIT(A) can call for and rely on necessary evidence to decide appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that assignment of a life interest under a trust does not amount to transfer of land or building. Since only a limited, determinable right was transferred, Section 50C could not be invoked.
Mumbai ITAT upholds deletion of ₹70 lakh under Section 69, ruling that uncorroborated WhatsApp scribbles from a third party cannot establish unexplained cash income.
he tribunal held that an appellate order based on an incorrect and reconstructed timeline of statutory notices is unsustainable. Errors in sequencing of notices strike at the root of jurisdiction and require fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that for redeveloped flats, the allotment date marks acquisition, confirming long-term capital gains eligibility under section 54, despite later possession.
