The Tribunal held that employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verification, remanding the case for limited review of TDS and expense records.
Even though the assessee had opted for DTVSVA, the non-payment of tax meant the settlement did not materialize. The Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A) to examine all submitted evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity to contest additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that late filing of Form 10-IC does not bar concessional tax benefits under Section 115BAA. The assessing officer was directed to allow relief once conditions are met.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹305.49 crore penalty imposed on a bank, ruling that section 115JB (MAT) does not apply to banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The decision emphasizes that penalties linked to inapplicable provisions cannot be sustained.
The ITAT held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition is deleted by a binding ITAT order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no stay or direction from the High Court could revive the deleted quantum.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty cannot continue after the underlying addition ceases to exist. The ruling highlights strict adherence to the principle of dependency between quantum and penalty.
The Tribunal condoned a 960-day delay after finding that the assessee’s reliance on VSV settlement and pending rectification was a bona fide cause. It ruled that penalty under Section 271D is independent of quantum proceedings. The penalty appeal was wrongly dismissed as infructuous and has been remanded for fresh decision.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that detailed records, including Demat statements and contract notes, proved the genuineness of penny-stock transactions, nullifying additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
Tribunal condoned a 938-day delay after finding that the appeal was incorrectly dismissed as withdrawn under VSVS. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the additions made under section 143(3).
