The ITAT in Raipur has condoned a 109-day delay in filing an appeal for Das Processors, noting that a technical glitch in Form 35 prevented email receipt. The tribunal also reinforced that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on their merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune has ruled that a validly approved gratuity fund’s income exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) cannot be denied due to a technical error, such as quoting a wrong section in the income tax return (ITR) or the non-filing of Form 10B.
The ITAT Raipur restored a penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after find-ing the dismissal was an ex parte order. The Tribunal ruled that a CIT(A) cannot summar-ily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but must adjudicate on merits.
The ITAT Mumbai has dismissed the revenue’s appeal against Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., ruling that a reassessment based on a prior audit note constitutes an invalid “change of opinion” and that Section 50C does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed on estimated additions from bogus purchases. Tribunal affirmed that without cogent evidence, estimated profits don’t warrant a penalty.
The ITAT in Mumbai has quashed a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act against law firm AZB & Partners. The tribunal ruled that the PCIT’s order was not justified, as the Assessing Officer had already conducted a proper enquiry and applied his mind to the issue, making it a “change of opinion,” not a “lack of enquiry.”
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled that Delta Air Lines’ income from code-sharing agreements with third-party carriers is exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the India-USA DTAA, as it qualifies as “profits from the operation of aircrafts in international traffic.”
The ITAT Mumbai has deleted a Rs. 184.75 crore transfer pricing adjustment related to advertising and marketing expenses (AMP). The tribunal ruled that these expenses were not an international transaction, aligning with consistent past judgments and emphasizing that the Revenue failed to prove a formal arrangement between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE).
The ITAT Visakhapatnam has partly allowed the appeal of Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, an agriculturist, by restricting the tax rate on an unexplained cash deposit to 30% in-stead of 60%.
ITAT Mumbai has deleted a Rs. 2.5 crore tax addition, ruling that Section 68 of Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loan balances carried forward from a previous year. ITAT found reopening and subsequent tax demand to be unjustified, as transaction’s genuineness was already established in a past assessment.
