The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A were invalid because the Assessing Officer did not specify the applicable statutory charge under the provision. It ruled that such omission violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the penalty.
The ITAT Dehradun held that cash turnover in a petrol pump business during demonetisation could not be disregarded entirely. Considering the facts of the case, it reduced the addition under Section 68 to a lump sum of Rs.5 lakh.
The ITAT Dehradun remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC after observing that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section 153D. As a result, the assessment order was quashed and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Dehradun held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied merely for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme when the assessee actually invested the sale proceeds in agricultural land within the statutory period. The ruling treats such non-deposit as a procedural lapse.
The tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding it addressed an incorrect issue. It ultimately upheld that no disallowance applies when no expense is claimed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. Applying the principle of consistency, the penalty was deleted.
ITAT upheld deletion of penalty as the exemption issue was pending before the High Court. The assessee had filed an undertaking under Section 158A. The ruling highlights that penalty cannot be sustained when the core issue is yet to be finally adjudicated.
ITAT held that addition under Section 69B based only on a loose sheet seized from a third party cannot be sustained when the assessee was denied cross-examination. The ruling treats such action as a violation of natural justice.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding corpus donations to annual receipts to deny exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Recognizing such donations as capital receipts, the Tribunal restored the tax exemption.
