The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
The ITAT ruled that generation of surplus and project-based contractual arrangements do not automatically convert environmental conservation activities into commercial ventures. The Tribunal directed grant of Section 12A registration after finding the activities genuinely charitable.
The ITAT observed that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act differs from ordinary interest under Section 34 and forms part of enhanced compensation. Therefore, taxation provisions relating to interest income were held inapplicable.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
The Tribunal held that the charitable trust mistakenly filed Form 10AB under an incorrect clause of Section 12A due to a bona fide error. ITAT directed the CIT(E) to permit correction of the application and reconsider registration on merits.
The Tribunal observed that official salary documents issued by the employer and Income Tax Department showed salary income of only ₹4.67 lakh. The incorrect figure in the return was therefore held to be a typographical mistake requiring rectification.
The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
ITAT Pune held that delay caused by lack of proper legal advice and dependence on tax consultants constituted reasonable cause. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on Section 80P deduction.
