The ruling clarifies that rectification powers are confined to patent errors and cannot be invoked to revisit decisions based on later changes in law.
The Tribunal ruled that a trust reporting a loss cannot be taxed on gross receipts. The addition by the AO was deleted, emphasizing that only net income is relevant for taxation under section 11.
The ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be invoked without first recording a clear dissatisfaction with the assessee’s working based on accounts. Mechanical application of the rule, without identifying specific expenditure linked to exempt income, was ruled invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that documented share transactions through recognised exchanges cannot be treated as bogus without contrary proof. General investigation reports and suspicion were held insufficient to sustain additions.
The tribunal held that internal brand, communication, and technology support under a shared services framework does not involve transfer of copyright or know-how. As a result, such payments are not royalty and attract no TDS under section 195.
The ITAT held that registration cannot be denied based on an incorrect interpretation of trust objects. Where amended deeds and clarifications exist, authorities must examine them before rejecting 12AB registration.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained money provisions cannot be applied on conjectures when the source of cash is reasonably explained. With no dispute on withdrawals and savings, the demonetisation-period addition failed on merits.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that Section 145A is a valuation provision, not a charging mechanism, and deleted a ₹38.26 lakh MODVAT/CENVAT addition, highlighting that proper accounting and reconciliation prevent artificial income.
The Tribunal ruled that a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Deduction was therefore allowed on interest income wrongly disallowed at the CPC stage.
