The ITAT Pune condoned a 100-day delay in filing the tax appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the taxpayer’s reliance on professional advice and relocation. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be heard on its merits, reinforcing the principle that substantive justice prevails over procedural lapses.
The ITAT struck down the additions, observing that the AO’s jurisdiction was potentially vitiated by a mechanical, consolidated approval for reopening, and the additions themselves relied solely on an uncorroborated statement and rough papers. The ruling confirms that unverified, rough documents lack sufficient evidentiary value to sustain income additions.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh disallowance of employees’ PF contribution, ruling that payment made on the next working day is timely when the statutory due date falls on a Sunday. The ruling applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, confirming that the delay was valid and unavoidable.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.34.65 crore addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, ruling that requirement to prove source of source only applies from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. Tribunal held that proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of loan creditors was sufficient for year under appeal.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the reassessment was invalid because the issue of setting off prior-year speculative losses was already examined in the original scrutiny assessment. The quashing relied on the “change of opinion” doctrine, as the AO used no new tangible material to reopen the case.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening beyond four years requires sanction from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Approval taken from the Joint Commissioner rendered the reassessment invalid.
The ITAT addressed whether a ₹ 28.94 Cr penalty was time-barred, focusing on whether the penalty initiation date starts with the AO’s satisfaction or the Addl. CIT’s notice.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order under Section 154, holding that a debatable issue regarding provision for construction expenses is not a “mistake apparent from record.” The ruling reinforces that Section 154 cannot be used to make additions that require a long-drawn process of reasoning or legal interpretation.
The ITAT followed its earlier ruling for the German financial institution, confirming that the management/processing fee was a component of the loan financing and not a fee for technical services. The decision directed the deletion of the entire addition, reinforcing that the taxability of fees must be determined based on their underlying nature and link to the principal loan.
