The ITAT in Hyderabad has remanded the case of Capital Fortunes to the AO, ruling that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on a technicality. The tribunal held that genuine claims, such as set-off of losses and dividend exemption, must be decided on their merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur has invalidated reassessment proceedings against Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Pawar, ruling that the case was reopened on a matter already examined during the original scrutiny assessment.
The ITAT Hyderabad has ruled that a 1060-day delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if statutory notices were sent to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from becoming aware of the proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed a PCIT order, ruling that revisional power cannot be invoked for mere verification, and a specific error must be proven to show prejudice to revenue.
The ITAT in Nagpur has quashed an ex parte order against a small taxpayer, an auto driver with limited education, whose appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). The tribunal ruled that the failure to serve notices in the preferred physical mode, as requested by the assessee, was a violation of natural justice, rendering the dismissal invalid.
The ITAT Hyderabad has sent a case involving a GST and Income Tax turnover mismatch back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed reconciliation, accepting the assessee’s claim that the discrepancy was due to a ‘year-shift’ in reporting export sales, not an income omission.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow has quashed an income tax assessment against Suraiya Begum, who had deposited Rs.13.08 lakh in her bank account during demonetization.
The ITAT in Raipur has set aside an ex parte order from the CIT(A) against Amriteshwaryai Mining. The tribunal ruled that issuing notices with less than 15 days’ time to respond violated principles of natural justice, restoring the appeal for a fresh adjudication on its merits.
ITAT Lucknow deleted an addition of ₹27.34 lakh under Section 40A(3), ruling that cash payments for land were justified by business expediency and genuine transactions.
The tribunal referenced a Kerala High Court precedent, holding that a belated return is still valid for claiming statutory deductions as long as assessment proceedings are pending.
