The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
The ITAT ruled that filing a revised return does not restrict interest entitlement on the amount claimed in the original, timely filed return, citing the Gujarat High Court. Interest must run from April 1st of the assessment year on the bulk refund, with the later date applying only to the incremental claim.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT ruled that the AO and CIT(A) erred by mechanically raising a default demand simply because commission was paid to a non-resident. The Tribunal stressed that full compliance evidence (Form 15CB, Form 27Q, DTAA analysis) must be examined before classifying the assessee as a defaulter.
The ITAT Ahmedabad, applying the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and Gujarat High Court’s precedent, invalidated a reassessment for AY 2017-18. The order u/s 148A(d) and fresh u/s 148 notice, stemming from a deemed notice issued on 30.06.2021, were held time-barred as they were issued 20 days beyond the maximum seven-day ‘surviving time’ limit.
The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling the CIT(A)’s rejection of agricultural income based solely on bank deposits not tallying bill-to-bill was arbitrary and illogical. Once the genuine agricultural activity was accepted, timing differences or cash accumulation must be considered.
The ITAT deleted a capital gains addition, ruling that the use of an individual’s PAN during a property sale cannot legally override clinching documentary evidence proving ownership by an HUF and a Trust. Legal ownership (Will, sale deed, bank receipts) prevails over a mere technicality.
The ITAT confirmed the revision, ruling the AO’s failure to restrict the deduction to the DSIR-approved amount in Form 3CL was an error contrary to the amended law, causing prejudice to the revenue. Post-2016 amendments make this verification mandatory.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed a revision, holding that when the Assessing Officer (AO) conducts a proper enquiry, the PCIT cannot substitute their judgment merely because they desire a deeper verification. The ruling establishes that inadequate enquiry is distinct from lack of enquiry, and only the latter justifies revision.
The SAFEMA Tribunal dismissed a bank’s appeal, ruling that PMLA attachment of mortgaged property overrides secured rights under the SARFAESI and RDB Acts. The decision affirms the Supreme Court’s NSEL verdict that secured creditors lack priority over assets attached as proceeds of crime.
