ITAT Indore remanded a Section 271(1)(c) penalty appeal after holding that the CIT(A) wrongly adjudicated it as an assessment appeal, contrary to Section 250(6).
ITAT Indore remanded a Section 36(1)(viia) deduction dispute, directing the AO to verify rural branch data before deciding the claim.
The Tribunal held that CPC could not process the return under Section 143(1) after the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that parallel proceedings under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) were not permissible.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAC could not be decided independently when the underlying assessment had already been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty issue was restored to the AO for reconsideration after completion of quantum proceedings.
Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed miscellaneous applications after a lapse of 14 years without establishing sufficient cause for non-appearance, and where service of the original order was presumed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as the term “afterwards” used in Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules provided procedural flexibility but did not grant an indefinite timeline.
The ITAT held that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied merely due to issues relating to filing of Form No. 10. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief in accordance with law.
ITAT Indore held that delayed filing of Form 10E due to Covid-19 related circumstances should not automatically deny substantive relief under Section 89 if the assessee is otherwise eligible.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Indore held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied when investment in new agricultural land was made within the prescribed two-year period. The Tribunal ruled that procedural non-compliance with the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme was not sufficient to reject the claim.
ITAT Indore held that Section 54 exemption cannot be denied merely for failure to deposit capital gains in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that actual investment in a new residential house within the prescribed two-year period satisfies the substantive requirement.
