ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued after the assessee’s death raised jurisdictional issues. Legal grounds like issuance to a deceased must be adjudicated before proceeding with assessments.
ITAT held that before treating high-value purchases as bogus, authorities must verify supplier’s GST status, ITC claims, and money trail. Key takeaway: Procedural diligence is required for large-scale disallowances.
The Court allowed the assessee one more opportunity to contest an ex-parte addition under Section 68, emphasizing the need for fair hearing and natural justice.
The Tribunal held that issues like capitation fee or misuse of funds are assessment matters, not grounds for denying registration under Section 12AA. The ruling confirms that the Commissioner must limit inquiry to objects and genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal clarified that income from events, totaling less than 20% of gross receipts, does not disqualify a GPU institution from claiming Section 11 exemption. The Assessing Officer’s and CIT(A)’s denial was set aside, as membership fees were not commercial income. Exemption was granted, confirming the society’s charitable status.
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.
