The Delhi ITAT restored a reassessment appeal to the CIT(A) because evidence was rejected only for lack of a formal Rule 46A application. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence if the assessee files a proper application within a reasonable time.
The Delhi ITAT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the intimation issued on February 27, 2023, was invalid as the legal deadline expired on December 31, 2022. Once the mandatory limitation period expires, the tax authority loses jurisdiction.
An assessment adding ₹17.62 lakh was annulled as the income was below ₹50 lakh, limiting the period to three years under Section 149(1)(a). The Tribunal held the notice was time-barred as it was reissued after the statutory period’s surviving time of one day expired.
India is moving to regulate Big Tech’s anti-competitive practices like predatory pricing, self-preferencing, and data misuse. A new Digital Competition Act is proposed to introduce ex-ante (preventive) measures for Systematically Important Digital Intermediaries (SIDIs), enhancing the CCI’s role against monopolistic behavior.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal, ruling that restrictions on set-off of carried-forward losses under Section 79 apply only in the year the set-off is claimed, not the year the loss is incurred and carried forward. The ruling confirmed that the AO erred in denying the carry forward of current year losses for subsequent years.
The Tribunal condoned a 563-day delay in filing appeal caused by frequent changes in management and poor communication in a co-operative bank. It held that negligence of officials should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh adjudication by CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by a Singapore company from its Indian affiliate for Regional Service Agreement (RSA) support are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or the DTAA. The Tribunal held that applying expertise for managerial and administrative services on a cost-sharing basis is a service, not the transfer of know-how.
The ITAT Kolkata allowed a trusts appeal, ruling its anonymous donations were not taxable under Section 115BBC after the trust demonstrated its objects included both religious and charitable purposes via an amended deed. The ruling overturned lower authority additions that had incorrectly classified the trust as purely charitable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹22.21 lakh penalty under Section 271AAB, ruling that the show-cause notice was defective for not specifying the charge. The Tribunal also held that mere stock valuation differences and an already offered cash investment do not qualify as “undisclosed income” under the section’s strict definition.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s mechanical application of Rule 8D without specific satisfaction was invalid. Since no new investments were made and own funds exceeded investments, disallowance was deleted.
