ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
The Tribunal ruled that the amended reassessment law does not revive assessment years that had become time-barred under the earlier statutory provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
ITAT Chennai confirmed that section 234A interest is only compensatory and cannot be charged for periods when no tax remains outstanding. Full payment of self-assessment tax prior to the start of March 2022 negated any basis for levy.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD could not be applied to a goods carriage business excluded under Section 44AE and restored the matter for fresh examination. The AO must verify conditions under Section 44AE and recompute income accordingly.
The Tribunal ruled that the entity did not qualify as an educational institution or as substantially government-financed, leading to denial of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption. The dispute over taxing gross receipts was remanded for a fresh decision. Key takeaway: fund management alone cannot justify exemption.
