The Tribunal rejected the Department’s argument that BSNL VRS payments were only voluntary retirement benefits. It held that the compensation fell within Section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation.
Pune ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to fully verify expenditure claims unsupported by vouchers. The Tribunal held that random verification was insufficient where substantial cash expenses were claimed.
Pune ITAT remanded the matter after the assessee explained that responses meant for the assessment appeal were inadvertently uploaded in the penalty appeal portal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
Tribunal ruled that unsold flats shown as stock-in-trade by a real estate developer cannot attract notional rent taxation. The decision relied on earlier judicial precedents recognizing such assets as part of business operations.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment proceedings become void when approval under Section 151 is taken from the wrong authority. Since sanction was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, the notice under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that CPC’s application of a 30% tax rate merely due to absence of turnover disclosure in the return form could not override the concessional rate provided by law.
Pune ITAT held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for cash deposits, reassessment could not continue on a completely new issue without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.
The Pune ITAT ruled that purchases cannot automatically be disallowed merely because suppliers failed to reply to notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh verification after considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed as invalid.
