The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that TOLA extended the time for issuing notice, holding that for A.Y. 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the 21.04.2021 notice lacked legal authority. Key takeaway: TOLA does not revive time-barred assessments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
The ITAT Rajkot ruled that exporters with turnover below ₹10 crore are equally eligible for 80HHC deductions, following the Supreme Court’s Avani Exports ratio. The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments cannot deny benefits to smaller exporters. The full deduction claimed by the assessee was restored, overturning AO and CIT(A) adjustments.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that a cess deduction claim based on favourable jurisprudence cannot trigger penalty. Compliance with Section 155(18), including timely Form 69 filing, protected the assessee from under-reporting allegations.
Given the assessee’s admission of incorrect turnover and failure to get accounts audited, the Tribunal found income estimation justified. However, finding that the AO’s 4% rate was slightly high and unsupported by specific defects, it revised the rate to 3.5%. Key takeaway: estimation must be justified and proportionate to facts on record.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
The Tribunal ruled that duty drawback income recognized on cash receipt basis cannot be taxed on accrual, as consistent accounting practice caused no revenue loss.
Difference between ready reckoner and stamp duty value was wrongly treated as misreported income. Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication, allowing assessee to present sale deeds, purchase deed, and bank statements.
This case examines whether the PCIT could revise an assessment under section 263 when the AO allowed interest income deduction under section 80P. The ITAT ruled that the AO’s order was a plausible view, and both conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
