The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the use of the word may in Section 271AAC gives discretionary power to the Assessing Officer and does not mandate automatic penalty levy. It emphasized that such discretion must be exercised judiciously.
The ITAT held that the institution’s activities as a seminary imparting religious training to priests established its religious character. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration of registration as a religious trust under Section 12AB.
The ITAT held that teaching Arabic language and Islamic studies through systematic instruction amounts to education and not religious activity. It directed grant of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted the stamp duty valuation despite contrary valuation material on record. The Tribunal directed fresh capital gain computation using the lower departmental valuation.
The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceedings for unauthorized construction. The Tribunal accepted the actual purchase price as fair market value and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal ruled that a flat 15% profit estimation was excessive where all contract receipts were received through banking channels with TDS deductions. It directed recomputation of income at 7% of turnover.
The ITAT held that reassessment following a search was valid because statements recorded during search constituted fresh tangible material. The ruling distinguished reassessment from a mere “change of opinion.”
Delhi ITAT ruled that only unique solar days of employee presence, and not cumulative man-days, should be considered for determining Service PE under the India-US DTAA. Since the assessee’s employees stayed only 72 unique days in India, no PE existed and Section 44BB taxation was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(x) could not be applied to property transactions relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 because the provision became effective only from AY 2018-19. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration.
