Penalty under section 271DA could not be sustained merely on the basis of unverified seized data without independent corroborative evidence. Revenue must conclusively establish violation of section 269ST, and where assessee had disclosed the income and paid due taxes, penalty was not automatic and must satisfy the test of reasonableness and statutory conditions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that a penalty notice under Section 271AAB must clearly specify the applicable statutory limb and charge. As the notice was vague and defective, the penalty proceedings were held to be invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Section 115BB addition after holding that the gaming platform’s records showed a net loss, not taxable winnings.
ITAT held that increased employee remuneration cannot be disallowed merely because business revenue declined where the expenditure is justified and supported.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D is invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.
ITAT held Form 10AB was filed beyond the prescribed time but permitted the trust to seek CBDT condonation under Section 119(2)(b) before merits are examined.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that excess application of income by a charitable trust can be adjusted against subsequent year’s income if supported by the trust’s books and records. It remanded the matter to the AO only for factual verification.
ITAT Hyderabad held that gold deposit agreements produced after the survey, without contemporaneous evidence or book entries, could not explain excess gold found during survey. The addition of ₹3.75 crore was therefore sustained.
Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bullion were clearly established. Relief was granted only for the cash supported by contemporaneous records.
