Since the CIT(E) had already accepted the assessed income by issuing Form 4 under the DTVSV Scheme, initiating revision later was held impermissible. Key takeaway: once settled under DTVSV, the assessment cannot be reopened through Section 263.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
Tribunal reviewed onion cultivation expenses claimed at 21% of gross receipts and found CIT(A)’s 35% estimate excessive. Net agricultural income accepted at Rs.67.12 lakh, partly allowing the appeal.
ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment under section 147 was invalid where the basis of information stemmed from a third-party search. It held that such cases must mandatorily proceed under section 153C. The key takeaway: search-linked data cannot justify a section 147 reopening.
ITAT Pune ruled that a primary credit cooperative society can claim deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from other cooperative banks, overturning Revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal held that TP additions for guarantee fee and interest were unsustainable because the TPO applied no prescribed method. Key takeaway: ALP must be determined using recognized methodologies, not ad-hoc markups.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act merely because of inadvertent error of claiming exemption u/s. 10(46) instead of 10(23C)(iv) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) granted.
