ITAT Delhi held that AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation under Section 153C as the deemed search year started only when documents were received in 2021, nullifying the reassessment and related penalties.
ITAT Delhi held that operating a primary school itself constitutes “education,” removing the need for CBSE or DOE affiliation for 12A registration under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT confirmed Section 263 revision after finding that the AO wrongly allowed delayed PF/ESI contributions despite binding Supreme Court law. The reassessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officers communication did not consider the assessees objections but only reiterated the basis of reopening. As the objections were not disposed of through a separate speaking order, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with GKN Driveshafts cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
Genuine sale was established through invoices, stock records, ledgers, bank proofs, and direct buyer confirmations, leaving no room for Section 68 additions. ITAT held that when sales are proved, no commission can be presumed under Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Bombay ITAT allowed a 363-day delay in filing appeals caused by misdirected emails, emphasizing liberal interpretation of sufficient cause and procedural fairness. Appeals were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that a 93-day delay caused by a tax professional’s mistaken assumption that the quantum appeal was already filed constituted a bona fide error. With no malafide intent shown, the delay was condoned, and both ex parte orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
