ITAT Chennai deleted additions made in search assessments (u/s 153A), ruling that Income Tax Department cannot make additions without specific, incriminating material seized during search. Following Supreme Courts ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, Tribunal held that search assessments are not fishing expeditions and must be strictly limited to evidence found post-search.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeals under the Black Money Act as withdrawn after the assessee received full relief from the CIT(A), who deleted the additions on the merits of beneficial ownership. Since the Department did not challenge the relief, the assessee chose not to pursue the technical and jurisdictional grounds before the Tribunal.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
ITAT deleted a Rs.54.85 crore tax addition, holding that make available clause of the India’s DTAA was not satisfied because routine IT support did not enable Indian entity to apply technology without provider’s ongoing reliance. A key takeaway is that mere recurring service provision, even with technical input, does not constitute make available of know-how.
Pune ITAT ruled against adding the perquisite value of rent-free accommodation, finding that the amount was already included and taxed as part of the directors’ disclosed salary.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award delivered nearly four years after hearings ended, holding that such unexplained delay violates fairness and public policy. A fresh arbitration was ordered before a new tribunal.
SC clarified that under Section 23(2) of RTE Act, teachers appointed before March 2015 could obtain TET qualification within four years of 2017 amendment. Since appellants did so, their termination after six years was unjustified.
