ITAT Mumbai rules that Section 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income, directing AO to cap disallowance accordingly and delete excess addition, granting relief to assessee.
ITAT Mumbai holds reassessment invalid where approval under Section 151 was obtained from incorrect authority, ruling defect as jurisdictional and quashing notice under Section 148 and consequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose.
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reopening beyond 3 years where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, holding notice under Section 148 time-barred and invalid, thereby deleting consequential addition.
The issue was whether an excessive delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Tribunal allowed condonation but imposed costs, balancing justice with procedural discipline.
ITAT Mumbai holds that vague purpose in Form 10 can deny Sec 11(2) exemption, remanding case for verification of actual utilization and allowing assessee to substantiate specific charitable purpose.
ITAT Mumbai rules redevelopment hardship compensation as capital receipt and deletes addition due to double taxation, granting relief where income was already taxed proportionately in later years.
ITAT held that once depreciation is allowed after scrutiny in the first year, it cannot be disallowed subsequently without fresh facts. The AO cannot revisit the same issue repeatedly. The key takeaway is that consistency must be maintained in tax assessments.
The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief. It held that Form 67 filed during rectification proceedings is valid compliance, allowing reconsideration of FTC claim.
