The ITAT Ahmedabad cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication, holding that penalty based on the original order cannot survive once the assessment itself is reopened.
The Tribunal ruled that both conditions for Section 263 revision must exist simultaneously. Since no exempt income was earned, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables rightly deleted since TNMM has been applied and working capital adjustment has been given while benchmarking the main international transaction.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The ruling reaffirmed that the provision applies only when exempt income actually arises.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after noting that the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The ruling reiterates that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The ITAT relied on surrounding circumstances, documentary evidence, and the principle of human probabilities to conclude that cash consideration was paid in a land transaction. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unaccounted sale consideration as short-term capital gains.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an unsigned Excel sheet found during survey, without corroborative evidence, cannot justify addition for alleged cash payments.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal. As the reopening was barred by limitation, the reassessment order was quashed.
