ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable for non-payment of self-assessment tax even if later it was concluded that there was no tax payable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
Chennai ITAT ruled a S. 271D penalty time-barred, holding that the six-month limitation period starts from the AO’s recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, not the Addl. CIT’s notice.
Delhi HC: DRP direction receipt date is the ITBA upload date (not physical receipt). Final tax assessment order passed one day late under S. 144C(13) is time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction because the necessary approval for the Section 148 notice, issued for A.Y. 2017-18 after three years, was obtained from the wrong authority. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the invalid approval under Section 151 vitiates the entire reassessment process.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against Theme Developers Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] for initiation of Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process [CIRP] admitted as operation debt and default thereon duly established.
The ITAT ruled the reassessment void because the AO failed to verify Insight data against the taxpayer’s filed return, leading to a factual mismatch and generic reasons for reopening. The decision confirms that mechanical satisfaction based on unverified information lacks the “live link” required for a valid Section 147 jurisdiction.
The case was remanded for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s claim that a significant Nazarana/fees paid to the Municipal Corporation should be included in the property’s cost. The ITAT directed the AO to verify all factual claims related to the cost of acquisition and the date of agreement for correct valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed additions totaling over ₹4.78 crore for unexplained partners’ capital and unsecured loans. The Tribunal ruled that the firm failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by relying on unaudited and unsubstantiated documents.
This case addresses the mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and income shown in the P&L account, which led to an addition for suppressed receipts. ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, relying on the SC ruling in TRF Ltd. to confirm that the company’s action of reversing the unrecovered billing as irrecoverable was a legitimate write-off, thus making the addition unjustified.
The ITAT restored an NRI’s tax appeal, accepting the argument that non-compliance before the lower authorities was not deliberate, as the taxpayer was abroad and faced difficulties accessing records during the pandemic. The Tribunal ruled that the appeal should be decided on its merits, setting aside the ex-parte order and directing the AO to verify the factual claims regarding the assessment year and capital gains.
