The ITAT ruled that extensive repairs to a 25-year-old factory building were revenue in nature since no new asset or enduring advantage arose. The addition treating the expense as capital was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
The Bombay High Court held that a separate cooperative society could not be registered for shops forming part of a single building already governed by an existing society. The Court ruled that registration under Section 9 cannot be used to indirectly fragment an existing society.
The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Tribunal held that an appeal filed before a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable and cannot be transferred. Liberty was granted to approach the correct Bench with a delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that EIS paid to originators is not subject to TDS because the originator had not subscribed to PTCs and was not an investor. Since statutory conditions under Section 194LBC were not met, demand under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was deleted.
The Court directed the PCCIT to appoint a senior officer to re-examine a refund claim where both parties lacked decades-old records. A reasoned decision must be taken to ensure any legitimate refund is not denied.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be allowed when not claimed in the original return of income. Section 80A(5) bars such belated claims raised for the first time before appellate authorities.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
