ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
The Tribunal highlighted that non-receipt of assessment notice and lack of knowledge about tax procedures justified the 175-day delay. The appeal was restored to the AO, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present his case.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal set aside the prior order as the deceased assessee could not represent himself and legal heirs were not on record. CIT(A) is directed to consider all issues afresh, including denial of indexed cost and 54F exemption.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty orders under section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act passed beyond 6 months from end of the month in which assessments were completed is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of revenue stands dismissed.
The ITAT held that the AO’s allowance of an 80G deduction without examining the background of M/s. Aadhar Foundation was erroneous. The decision reinforces that Explanation-2 to Section 263 requires verification when there is material indicating possible bogus donations.
ITAT Hyderabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial hence revision order quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the amended reassessment law does not revive assessment years that had become time-barred under the earlier statutory provisions.
The ITAT Jaipur held that joint ownership of a new property does not bar full exemption under Section 54F if the assessee funds the purchase and retains control over the asset.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
