The ITAT Ahmedabad condoned a 604-day delay and remanded a case for fresh consideration of a public trust’s registration after the CIT(E) cancelled its provisional registration.
Relying on Malabar Industrial, Max India, and Gabriel India precedents, ITAT ruled that when two views are possible, PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction. Original assessment for AY 2020-21 was restored.
The ITAT Delhi has cancelled a Rs.986 crore tax on Tata NYK Shipping, reiterating that international shipping income is exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA, not taxable as royalty.
Tribunal held that different floors of the same residential property cannot be treated as separate houses. Jyoti Jain’s exemption under Section 54F was allowed, clarifying the scope of ‘residential house’ for capital gains exemption.
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
Briya Enterprise Ltd. successfully had delays in filing appeals condoned after ITAT held that notices sent to outdated email IDs and old Authorized Representatives justified the delay. Appeals were restored to CIT(A) for fresh decisions on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai ruled in favor of NND Ambernath LLP, holding that a donation made to an institution with a valid exemption at the time of the transaction cannot be disallowed.
Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi has ruled that a disputed tax addition is no longer valid after the Assessing Officer (AO) himself rectified the initial assessment order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, granting the taxpayer full relief.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 21.66 crore addition to a taxpayer’s income, ruling that the Assessing Officer illegally expanded the scope of a limited scrutiny. The Tribunal also held that the purchase and reconstruction of an old house qualifies for tax exemption under Section 54F.
