ITAT Delhi ruled that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius is sufficient proof of residency to claim benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s attempt to deny treaty protection based on vague allegations of the assessee being a paper/shell company.
The ITAT Hyderabad set aside the CIT(A)’s appellate order after finding it contained extensive facts and discussions unrelated to the assessee’s case, signaling non-application of mind. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after properly appreciating the factual matrix.
Assessments framed under Section 153A based on mechanical approval under Section 153D were invalid in law as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) had accorded omnibus and perfunctory approval to multiple draft assessment orders without application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessments.
ITAT ruled that the sale of a commercial property after six years due to prolonged vacancy and financial pressure is a capital transaction, not an adventure in trade. The income must be assessed as Long-Term Capital Gains.
The ITAT Kolkata dismissed an appeal filed by Santhosh Devi Soni as withdrawn after the assessee elected to settle the tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request since the dispute was resolved under the settlement scheme.
The ITAT Lucknow quashed the ex-parte appellate orders for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17, ruling that the CIT(A) failed in its statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the appeal merits. The case is remitted for a de novo assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was premature when the related quantum appeal was still pending, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai quashed a Rs.10 lakh penalty under Black Money Act, ruling that DDIT(Inv.) lacked necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to impose penalties exceeding ₹5 lakh. Decision strictly enforces CBDT guidelines, which reserve penalty proceedings requiring JCIT approval for regular Assessing Officer, deeming DDIT(Inv.) order as being without jurisdiction.
ITAT Chennai deleted additions made in search assessments (u/s 153A), ruling that Income Tax Department cannot make additions without specific, incriminating material seized during search. Following Supreme Courts ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, Tribunal held that search assessments are not fishing expeditions and must be strictly limited to evidence found post-search.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
