Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
The ruling held that telecom voice termination services do not constitute royalty as no secret process or intellectual property is involved. Such receipts are treated as business profits and are not taxable in India without a permanent establishment.
The issue involved levy of late fees on TDS returns processed before statutory amendment. The Tribunal held that absence of enabling provision made such levy invalid and unsustainable.
The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such vagueness invalidates the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that valuation without giving the assessee an opportunity to object violates natural justice. It remanded the matter for fresh DVO assessment. The ruling stresses procedural compliance in valuation cases.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹29.22 lakh addition u/s 56(2)(x), holding that stamp duty value on booking/allotment date must be adopted where consideration was fixed earlier and paid through banking channels, not the higher value on registration date.
The Tribunal held that cash introduced into capital cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by past savings. It accepted the assessees financial history and balance sheet evidence. The ruling emphasizes practical evaluation of taxpayer capacity.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment for AY 2015–16 as time-barred under amended Section 149, since escaped income was below ₹50 lakh; entire penny stock addition u/s 68 was held void without examining merits.
The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not establish concealment, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace evidence. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary additions.
