The Tribunal held that the delay was supported by sufficient cause, including the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation orders and an error by the assessee’s counsel. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by applying the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation directions. It also allowed the Foreign Tax Credit claim by following earlier judicial precedents.
The case concerned denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely due to delayed filing of Form No. 67. The Tribunal followed earlier precedents and directed that the credit be granted after verification.
The Tribunal held that additions relating to share capital and share premium required fresh examination after considering the assessee’s documentary evidence and offer to produce investor-company directors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal ruled that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation qualifies for complete exemption under Section 10(10B) despite the assessee not claiming it in the original return. It directed the Revenue to recompute income and issue the eligible refund.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by treating capital gains as business income without obtaining mandatory approval for complete scrutiny. The appeal was partly allowed on this technical ground, and the merits were not examined.
The ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
The ITAT held that a scrutiny assessment cannot survive where the jurisdictional Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that the defect rendered the entire assessment void ab initio despite transfer of the case.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed through e-Proceedings must be digitally signed as required by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018. Since the order was manually signed without any prescribed exception, it was quashed.
