The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a charitable trusts tax case, ruling that the AO violated natural justice by making a Rs. 2.24 crore addition based on a third-party search statement without providing the assessee with copies of the statement or documents for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after giving the trust a proper opportunity to contest the evidence.
The ITAT Pune substantially reduced a penalty under Rs. 271(1)(b), ruling that issuing successive notices for the same set of information constitutes only a single, continuing default, not multiple independent offenses. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the initial non-compliance, deleting the balance Rs. 30,000.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers simply because they desire a deeper investigation, establishing that inadequate enquiry is not equivalent to no enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that a Mauritian shipping companys freight income could not be taxed in India under Article 7 (Business Profits) of the DTAA. The decision was based on the finding that its Indian agent was commercially independent and did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE).
After the High Court rejected the capital gains argument, the Tribunal applied Section 14 to classify the receipt from the trusteeship surrender. Since the amount did not fit into any specific head of income (Salary, Business, or Capital Gains), the ITAT ruled it must be taxed under the residuary head, Income from Other Sources.
The ITAT granted relief by ruling that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income voluntarily disclosed during a survey if no specific unexplained cash credit or investment section (like 68 or 69) was invoked. The Tribunal held that the disclosed income remains taxable, but only at normal tax rates.
The ITAT refused to condone the Revenues 100-day delay in filing an appeal, holding that busy officer or bureaucratic delay does not constitute sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation binds Government departments equally, and vague excuses are not acceptable.
