ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
ITAT clarified that transfer of case between officers in the same city does not require a new notice or hearing, reinforcing that procedural continuity under Section 127(4) ensures jurisdictional validity.
ITAT Indore held that land located beyond 8 km from nearest municipality does not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii), exempting gains from capital gains tax.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, fully upholding the addition for salary kickbacks based on overwhelming seized evidence showing a routine, systematic practice. The Tribunal confirmed that this consistent pattern justified extrapolation for the full year.
Rejecting assessee’s plea of invalid reopening, Tribunal ruled that minor clerical mistakes in reasons recorded under Section 147 do not vitiate proceedings if substantive material exists. Information disseminated through Insight Portal was sufficient to establish AO’s belief.
ejecting the Revenue’s approach, the Tribunal held that mere quantum of advertisement or marketing expenses cannot trigger transfer pricing adjustment without demonstrating a direct nexus with a foreign AE.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial of Section 11 exemption solely due to non-furnishing of the registration certificate under Section 12A is invalid where 80G approval exists, since 80G presupposes valid 12AA registration.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Dehradun accepted ₹15 lakh from poplar tree sales as explained income and ruled that Section 115BBE applies prospectively from 1 April 2017. Tribunal granted partial relief, deleting major additions made on demonetisation cash deposits.
NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in rejecting a CoC-approved resolution plan, emphasizing that commercial wisdom should prevail absent statutory violations under Section 30(2) of the IBC.
