https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758047 ITAT PUNE allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that DRP erroneously rejected the application on limitation grounds. The application filed on 15.04.2024 was within time per Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1963, as the previous day was a holiday. DRP's rejection for technical defects without issuing defect memo was deemed hyper-technical. Regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applicability, ITAT noted the amendment applied to transactions after 01.10.2010, while assessee's payment was made before 12.08.2008. AO failed to properly analyze facts including the agreement dated 20.08.2008 and registration date, which are crucial for determining provision's applicability. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 08:22:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758047 ITAT PUNE allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that DRP erroneously rejected the application on limitation grounds. The application filed on 15.04.2024 was within time per Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1963, as the previous day was a holiday. DRP's rejection for technical defects without issuing defect memo was deemed hyper-technical. Regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applicability, ITAT noted the amendment applied to transactions after 01.10.2010, while assessee's payment was made before 12.08.2008. AO failed to properly analyze facts including the agreement dated 20.08.2008 and registration date, which are crucial for determining provision's applicability. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758047