ITAT Delhi rules DigiCert Inc’s receipts from Indian resellers for digital security certificates aren’t royalty or FTS. It’s a non-taxable sale of a copyrighted article.
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty paid to private entities/ third parties towards breach of contract is the usual course of business and doesn’t involve payment of penalty for infraction of any law hence disallowance made under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act is unwarranted.
ITAT Jaipur quashed the reassessment order against Late Shri Jitendra Nagar, ruling the AO used the wrong authority (PCIT) for sanction under Section 151(ii), following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal precedent.
ITAT Delhi rules Section 148 notice invalid as escaped income not represented in an ‘asset’; reassessment quashed for being time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loan is liable to be sustained since the assessee has miserably failed to establish the essential three ingredients as prescribed in section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
Relying on the jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the entire crore addition, holding that service of the notice beyond the statutory limitation date is a fatal flaw. The decision emphasizes that procedural compliance with the time limit is mandatory and cannot be waived.
TAT Delhi rules that deletion of unsecured loan additions under Section 68 is procedurally flawed if AO is denied opportunity to verify fresh evidence. Matter remanded for de novo examination.
The ITAT set aside the entire reassessment, holding that a valid notice is a mandatory jurisdictional step, citing the Supreme Court’s Hotel Blue Moon ruling. Since the two notices issued were defective (one premature, the other beyond the statutory time limit), the assessment was deemed illegal.
