ITAT holds that technical-glitch-related delay in filing Form 10AB cannot be rejected outright, directing the assessee to seek CBDT condonation. Ruling clarifies limits of CIT(E)s powers and ensures fair reconsideration of 80G approval.
ITAT Chandigarh condoned an 87-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee acted on genuine advice about CPC TDS rectification, emphasizing substantial justice over technical dismissal.
The Tribunal held that TP additions for guarantee fee and interest were unsustainable because the TPO applied no prescribed method. Key takeaway: ALP must be determined using recognized methodologies, not ad-hoc markups.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. Key takeaway: cases dismissed mechanically must be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed a Rs.16.24 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the fresh assessment accepted the returned income, confirming penalties require concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT held that approvals granted under Section 153D without genuine application of mind are invalid, quashing multiple assessment orders. Key takeaway: mechanical or blanket approvals violate procedural requirements and render assessments null.
The Tribunal ruled that penalties under Section 43 of BMA cannot be imposed for bona fide reporting mistakes when investments were from legitimate, disclosed funds.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
