ITAT Chennai held that the excess payment over the net book value of assets and liabilities acquired on account of amalgamation is in the nature of ‘goodwill’ and is eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire class. It upheld that uniform treatment satisfies statutory requirements under Section 106.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has conducted detailed inquiries and adopted a plausible view. The Tribunal ruled that a mere change of opinion by the PCIT does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial.
The High Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely due to delay in claiming it after retrospective amendments to GST law. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on other conditions.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to consider the assessee’s Internal CUP benchmarking despite directions from the DRP. It directed fresh examination using the correct method and excluded certain NCDs from adjustment.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 54 could be restricted to one property. ITAT held that prior to the 2015 amendment, multiple residential properties were eligible, and full deduction must be allowed.
The ITAT held that a 29-day delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and cannot be the sole basis for denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. It ruled that substantial compliance and availability of the audit report before processing must be considered. The AO was directed to reassess the exemption claim accordingly.
The High Court held that interest under Section 234B must be waived where conflicting judicial decisions created uncertainty regarding tax exemption. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be reconsidered if the taxpayer files pending returns and clears dues, directing authorities to consider restoration.
