The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. Following Calcutta High Court precedents, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s attempt to apply the prospective Finance Act 2022 amendment to the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15).
The Tribunal held that the DTAA overrides the Income Tax Act, and income taxed abroad cannot be taxed again in India. The ITAT rejected the view that authorities lack power to condone delay, allowing the FTC claim after verification of the eventually filed Form 67.
The ITAT ruled that loss from trading in foreign currency derivatives on a recognized exchange is non-speculative business loss, eligible for set-off under Section 43(5)(d). The Tribunal held that such transactions are covered by the exception for derivatives and rejected the lower authorities’ mechanical disallowance.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment due to two fundamental defects: the 143(2) notice was invalid as it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (Limited/ Complete) per CBDT instructions, and the assessment was completed by the ACIT, who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the Rs.10.41 Lakh income case. The ruling stresses that procedural compliance with binding CBDT instructions is mandatory, or the entire assessment becomes void.
This decision emphasizes that violation of binding CBDT instructions, such as failing to specify the category of scrutiny in the Sec. 143(2) notice, strikes at the root of the assessment. The Kolkata Tribunal quashed the entire Sec. 143(3) assessment as being without jurisdiction, affirming that legal grounds can be raised at any stage.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a search assessment (Sec. 153A) because a search was never physically conducted on the assessee’s premises, ruling that a mere mention in a panchnama is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that an assessment under Sec. 153A is void ab initio if an actual search on the person or property of the assessee is not initiated and conducted.
ITAT condones 498-day delay & remands case for de novo assessment, ruling that a mere mistaken capital gains declaration by a previous representative doesn’t create tax liability. AO must verify if actual property transfer occurred, as documents show no sale.
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
DCIT Vs Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Project Terminated, Shares Worth Zero – ITAT Allows ₹68 Cr Capital Loss & Strikes Down 68 Addition A 90MW hydropower project was allotted by the Himachal Pradesh Govt. to HPPPL in 2009, which paid ₹18 Cr upfront fees. A project company MHEPCL was formed, shares were moved […]
