The Tribunal held that late fees could not be imposed where supplementary Bills of Entry were filed due to excess cargo discovered after clearance and the delay was not attributable to the importer. It ruled that Section 46(3) permits waiver in deserving cases.
The ITAT Delhi held that a consolidated satisfaction note covering several assessment years without year-specific analysis failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 153C. It quashed the assessment and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment completed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was a nullity in law. Since the original assessment was invalid, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 could not be sustained. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that interest received by an Indian branch from its overseas head office and branches is not taxable under the domestic law as it represents transactions with self. The Tribunal applied the principle of mutuality and dismissed the Revenue’s challenge.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from hiring conference and auditorium facilities constituted business income under Section 11(4A) as the charitable society actively provided commercial facilities beyond passive letting. The assessee’s appeals were dismissed.
The Supreme Court directed High Courts to first determine whether the reassessment cases relate to AY 2015-16. If they do, the notices must be declared time-barred in terms of Rajeev Bansal without further adjudication.
The ITAT observed that recording satisfaction for one penalty provision cannot substitute the statutory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 271D. The penalties were therefore set aside following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee’s consultant did not amount to misreporting of income under Section 270A(9). The penalty was cancelled as there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The Gujarat High Court held that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 could not be sustained where allowing higher depreciation would not result in any escapement of income chargeable to tax. It ruled that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and quashed the proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court held that DGCEI falls within the scope of law enforcement agencies under Clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular, making the exception to departmental appeal monetary limits applicable. The Tribunal’s contrary interpretation was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
