ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of 12A and 80G applications solely because of an incorrect statutory provision was unsustainable. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to allow rectification and decide the applications on merits.
ITAT Delhi restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer after noting that the related quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the penalty should also be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that CPC could not process the return under Section 143(1) after the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that parallel proceedings under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) were not permissible.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish between under-reporting and misreporting of income. The penalty was deleted for lack of a specific finding.
Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and uncorroborated loose sheet lacking essential transaction details could not form the sole basis for an addition. It held that documentary evidence and purchasers’ statements rebutted the presumption arising from the seized document.
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained solely on the basis of a seized loose sheet without independent evidence proving payment of on-money. It upheld the deletion after finding that the Revenue failed to corroborate the alleged unexplained investment.
The ITAT Jaipur held that a remittance received from a foreign employer under a retirement plan did not amount to concealment of foreign income or assets. It deleted the Rs.10 lakh penalty after accepting the assessee’s bona fide explanation.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act was not justified where foreign bank deposits arose from overseas employment income and related interest was regularly disclosed in India. The Tribunal treated the omission as a bona fide mistake based on the facts of the case.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory before initiating penalty under Section 271D. In the absence of such satisfaction, the penalties were deleted.
The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding violations of Sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment order. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
