ITAT Pune addresses the retrospective application of Section 234E late fees and Section 200A intimations for TDS returns, citing key judicial precedents.
ITAT Hyderabad held that NHAI grant shall not be reduced from the cost of project before allowing amortization of cost of project. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition based on statement is liable to be quashed as the statement was recorded from the back of the assessee and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Nagpur held that co-operative society is eligible to claim deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest earned from credit facilities extended to nominal members. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Visakhapatnam condones delay, allows Britg Foundation to rectify procedural error in 12AB registration application, emphasizing substantive rights over technical lapses.
ITAT Visakhapatnam quashes reassessment for AY 2015-16, holding Section 148 notice issued after 31.03.2022 as time-barred and beyond jurisdiction.
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Assessing Officer [AO], having no jurisdiction, is invalid. Accordingly, assessment order and consequent proceeding are also invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act gets applicable as source of undisclosed income admitted during the course of survey not explained. Merely disclosing and paying tax doesn’t protect assessee from clutches of section 69A.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition by adopting Percentage Completion Method cannot be sustained as department already accepted Project Completion Method in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition set aside.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not to be levied as Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c), which specifically governs penalty in transfer pricing cases, was neither invoked during the initiation nor discussed while levying the penalty and neither TPO nor CIT(A) ever held that the ALP was computed outside the statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith.
