ITAT Pune reaffirmed that 15% accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) must be computed on gross receipts. Revenue’s argument restricting it to surplus was rejected, relying on consistent rulings of Supreme Court and High Courts.
ITAT sustained PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that AO’s mechanical acceptance of a low profit margin return without proper inquiry was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue’s interest. AO failed to examine applicability of mandatory audit under Section 44AB and correctness of declared profit ratio in liquor trade.
Pune ITAT significantly reduced Section 14A disallowance, ruling that administrative expenses relating to a proprietary concern with no investments must be excluded from computation. ITAT applied a reasonable estimate of Rs.10 lakh after finding expenses like depreciation and property tax had no nexus with earning exempt income.
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the ex parte assessment, penalty, and demand orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 144B, accepting the taxpayer’s plea of bona fide non-appearance. The court adopted a justice-oriented approach, remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration from the show-cause notice stage.
The Karnataka High Court struck down an Income Tax attachment under Section 281B because the property was exclusively owned by a non-assessee petitioner who acquired it through valid transactions. The court ruled that tax recovery cannot attach property not belonging to the actual assessee, making the order illegal.
