The ITAT Pune held that the option exercised under Section 115BAC continues for subsequent years unless it is withdrawn or becomes invalid under the Act. It directed the AO/CPC to allow the new tax regime for AY 2023-24.
ITAT held BSNL VRS-2019 compensation is retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), exempt from tax, and reversed the CIT(A)’s order.
ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate restriction by the AO.
The ITAT Pune held that detailed agreements, invoices and supporting records established that management support services were actually rendered by the Associated Enterprise. It ruled that the payment was at arm’s length and deleted the entire transfer pricing adjustment.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution. The appellate authority must adjudicate every appeal on merits and provide reasons as required under Section 250(6).
The Pune ITAT refused to condone a 661-day delay in filing an appeal against rejection of Section 12AB registration. It held that vague explanations regarding a tax consultant and wrong email address, without supporting evidence, did not constitute sufficient cause.
The Pune ITAT deleted a ₹10 lakh addition after finding no reliable evidence that the assessee paid cash while purchasing a flat. It held that payments made through banking channels cannot be disregarded merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
The Tribunal distinguished between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry, holding that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desired further verification. Since the AO had examined the evidence, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT Pune upheld the deletion of an addition made by extrapolating a small unreconciled difference in Form 26AS to the entire year’s receipts. It held that the Assessing Officer’s approach ignored the revised reconciliation and could not form the basis for estimating undisclosed income.
