The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the show cause notice fails to specify the exact charge. ITAT held that a vague notice violates law, making the entire penalty unsustainable.
The issue was whether six years of search assessments could stand when the first appeal was dismissed ex-parte. ITAT held that denial of meaningful hearing violates natural justice and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The case addressed the legality of assessments framed pursuant to a search when the satisfaction note lacked statutory particulars. The Tribunal quashed all assessments, holding them non-est in law due to invalid satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on a specific appellate direction is legally valid under section 150(1). The key takeaway is that such directions must be challenged separately and cannot be questioned collaterally in reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The issue was whether TDS credit can be claimed by a person not named in the sale deed. ITAT held that TDS credit belongs only to the actual owners who executed the sale agreement.
The Tribunal upheld cancellation after finding that funding practices influenced editorial content and political narratives. The ruling confirms that such conduct constitutes specified violations warranting loss of charitable status.
The tribunal held that Section 41(1) applies only when a liability is actually remitted or ceases to exist. Mere passage of time or old outstanding balances cannot justify a deemed income addition.
The tribunal held that late filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and cannot defeat exemption under Section 11. If the audit report is available before assessment or rectification, exemption must be allowed.
The dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
