The Mumbai ITAT held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a deceased person are legally void once the department is informed about the death. Both the assessment and appellate orders were quashed as nullities.
The Pune ITAT ruled that purchases cannot automatically be disallowed merely because suppliers failed to reply to notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh verification after considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural defect and cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA.
The ITAT Delhi held that once income higher than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD was declared, the assessee was not required to maintain detailed books or expense records. The addition based on estimated expenditure was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the assessee’s submissions and documentary evidence in a Section 54F dispute. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing opportunity.
ITAT Delhi held that MAT provisions under Section 115JB cannot apply once a company validly opts for concessional taxation under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal also relied on consistency as the department had accepted the option in earlier years.
ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the assessee’s jurisdiction lay in Agra, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal.
