ITAT Kolkata invalidated the assessment under Section 143(3), ruling that the foundational notice under Section 143(2) was void ab initio for failing to comply with the mandatory CBDT prescribed format. CBDT instructions issued under Section 119 are binding on the department.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that a charitable trust’s exemption under Section 11/10(23C) cannot be denied for technical lapse of belatedly filing Form 10B/10BB. Audit report was available when return was processed.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld adding Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that the genuineness of penny stock transactions must be judged by the test of human probabilities.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted a Rs.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 271D for a cash deposit violating Section 269SS. The Tribunal ruled the deposit was a temporary parking of funds by the father for security, not a loan or deposit.
ITAT Kolkata deleted a Rs.7.11 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that an assessee’s comprehensive documentary evidence (PAN, bank statements) cannot be dismissed merely because subscribers failed to appear for summons. The onus shifted back to the Revenue.
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the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address.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.
