The ITAT Pune held that a genuine claim for exemption under Section 10(20) cannot be rejected merely because the assessee mistakenly claimed a deduction under a different provision in its return.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when the reason recorded for reopening an assessment does not ultimately result in any addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition on a completely different issue.
The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement alleging accommodation loans when documentary evidence proves identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer accepted income without making an addition after conducting enquiries. The ruling clarifies that revisionary powers require a lack of enquiry, not just a difference of opinion over the adequacy of verification.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid where the case was based on search material requiring action under Section 153C. The ruling reinforces that search-related assessments for third parties must follow the special procedure under Section 153C, not regular reassessment provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delayed appeal filing after finding sufficient cause and allowed the matter to proceed. It also clarified that reassessment jurisdiction remains valid despite arguments regarding faceless assessment provisions.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the CIT(A) cannot reclassify an addition under a different provision of the Income-tax Act without issuing a specific notice to the taxpayer. The decision reinforces the limits of appellate powers and upholds principles of natural justice.
The ITAT ruled that deduction of TDS does not excuse failure to file an income tax return. The decision emphasizes that income discovered through departmental records can attract penalty for under-reporting under Section 270A.
The Commission examined allegations relating to one-sided agreements, rental suppression, and delayed payments in commercial real estate projects. It ruled that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance or anti-competitive conduct was established because dominance itself was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that technical glitches on the income tax portal, coupled with grievances raised by the taxpayer, justified condonation of a 2-month and 21-day delay in filing an appeal. The key takeaway is that genuine system-related difficulties may amount to sufficient cause for procedural delays.
