ITAT Agra held that reassessment proceedings framed using a PAN surrendered years earlier were invalid. Since the assessment was based on a non-existent PAN, the entire proceedings were quashed.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that investment in rights relating to a specific residential flat under a redevelopment project qualifies for Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that beneficial provisions should receive a liberal interpretation when substantial compliance is established.
The Agra ITAT held that disallowance of employees’ PF and ESI contributions could not be made through Section 143(1) processing when the legal position was unsettled. The ruling emphasizes that highly debatable issues fall outside the scope of prima facie adjustments.
The Chandigarh ITAT held that deduction under Section 54 cannot be restricted merely because the new residential property is jointly held with a spouse. The decisive factor is the source of investment, which in this case originated entirely from the assessee.
The Agra ITAT held that an independent addition under Section 69A was unsustainable when the AO had accepted the assessee’s declared business income. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of the deposits after evaluating the business receipts.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing analysis should focus on international transactions rather than entity-level profitability where segmental data is available. The case was remanded for fresh consideration of comparables and ALP determination.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshold under the India-Canada DTAA. Consequently, income attribution to the alleged PE was held to be unsustainable.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAC could not be decided independently when the underlying assessment had already been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty issue was restored to the AO for reconsideration after completion of quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
