The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is inapplicable to additional income surrendered during a survey operation that took place before the provision was amended to prescribe the enhanced rate.
The ITAT partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, deleting Rs.26.16 lakh of the unexplained cash deposit added under Section 68 for the demonetisation period. The ruling emphasizes that tax authorities should make a fair estimation when the assessee’s explanation has partial merit, even if the documentary proof is insufficient to justify the whole claim.
The ITAT confirmed that a commission paid to non-resident agents operating solely abroad, without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is not taxable in the country. This finding resulted in the cancellation of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal ruled that an HUF, the beneficial owner of the income, cant be denied TDS credit just because the tax was initially shown in the Kartas PAN. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify subsequent compliance with Rule 37BA(2) and the updated Form 26AS to prevent the Revenues unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits during demonetisation, sourced from verifiable housing loan withdrawals, were explained and not unexplained income. Following the P&H HC, the ITAT held that the retention of cash for construction, even for a long time, doesnt justify the addition when the source is proven.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional AO lacked the legal authority to issue the Section 148 notice after the CBDTs notification mandating the Faceless AO. Since the foundation of the reopening was flawed, the subsequent additions of over ₹1.5 Crore were deleted, and the entire assessment order was quashed.
The appellate tribunal affirmed that the crucial factor for allowing full depreciation is that the seller had not claimed any depreciation on the assets transferred in the slump sale. The ruling confirms that meeting the 180-day use condition for assets, including acquired goodwill, fully satisfies Section 32(1) requirements.
The ITAT ruled the entire reassessment void ab initio because the 148 notice, issued after March 29, 2022, was served by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the mandatory Faceless AO (FAO). Following High Court precedent, the tribunal held that this is a non-curable jurisdictional defect that voids the notice and the subsequent assessment.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed income tax assessments under Section 153A, ruling that the mandatory Section 153D approval was mechanical and invalid. The Tribunal held that the approving authority failed to apply independent reasoning, using a ‘rubber stamp’ proforma for multiple assessees without considering specific facts or seized material, thus making the entire assessment void ab initio.
