The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, and assessment proceedings. The penalties were deleted as there was no concealment of income.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advisory and consultancy services provided by a UAE company did not amount to Fees for Technical Services because no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, no TDS liability arose on the remittances.
The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Repayment of the loan did not alter its tax treatment.
The ITAT held that a transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) is invalid if the assessee is not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As a result, notices issued by the transferee officers lacked legal validity and the assessment was quashed.
ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening an assessment after four years based on issues already examined during scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. The key takeaway is that reassessment cannot be used as a tool to review a concluded assessment without fresh tangible material.
The Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
