The Tribunal held that only the first non-compliance under Section 142(1) could attract penalty, deleting the remaining ₹50,000 imposed for repeated defaults. It also restored penalties under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) for fresh adjudication since they depend on the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted and basic supporting documents exist, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld a 6% GP addition and rejected the Revenue’s demand for 100% disallowance.
The order was remanded after ITAT found the CIT(A) overlooked core issues including validity of belated 148 return, applicability of 153C, and cross-examination rights.
ITAT Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
After examining the step-wise rework operations, the Tribunal found no specialized skill or scientific process involved. It upheld the deletion of the ₹4.81-crore disallowance since the payments did not attract TDS under FTS provisions.
ITAT Delhi held that reimbursements for seconded employees’ salaries cannot be taxed as technical services, as a genuine employer-employee relationship existed with Indian entities. The ruling confirms that taxed salary payments cannot be recharacterized as FTS.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that belated filing of Form 10B is only a technical defect and cannot justify denial of charitable exemption. The Tribunal restored Section 11 benefits after confirming compliance in substance.
ITAT held that the appellate order passed without hearing the assessee violated natural justice. The case was remanded with directions to provide proper opportunities.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a notice under section 148 issued beyond the statutory period is invalid, quashing a ₹115 crore reassessment of a share-trading company. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to “surviving time” limits, making the reassessment void.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
