The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand a limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without written approval from the Principal CIT. Additions under Sections 2(22)(e) and 69A were struck down, reaffirming that CBDT instructions are mandatory.
The Tribunal held that freight amounts collected and passed on to airlines are mere reimbursements, not income. Only the assessee’s service margin is taxable.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
ITAT held that the AO’s 8% estimation had no support from comparables or past margins. Applying consistency with earlier family-group cases, profit was fixed at 4% and the unexplained investment addition became academic.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.45 lakh in specified notes came from genuine vazhipadu collections and that the authorities wrongly rejected a plausible explanation.
Even though the assessee had opted for DTVSVA, the non-payment of tax meant the settlement did not materialize. The Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A) to examine all submitted evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity to contest additions.
ITAT Chennai held that neurology conferences and workshops squarely fall within the ambit of education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that since there was sufficient own funds to make investment/advances to its subsidiary, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted. Accordingly, AO directed to delete the addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
