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.
ITAT ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had no power to cancel registration under Section 12AB(4) for violations that occurred before April 2022, rendering the action void.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
ITAT ruled that invoking the Black Money Act for AY 2022–23 on income earned in FY 2015–16 was without jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that religious institutions can claim exemption under Section 10(23BBA) even without filing a return, citing CBDT Circular No. 4/2002. Case remanded for factual verification.
