ITAT Jaipur held that a one-day delay in filing Form 10DA could not defeat a Section 80JJAA deduction when the form was on record before the Section 143(1) intimation.
ITAT held the Section 271D penalty was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) as it was imposed after the prescribed limitation period.
ITAT Jaipur held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was filed late when it was already available before processing the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal allowed the trust’s appeal and directed grant of the exemption.
ITAT held that Section 87A rebate cannot be denied on tax payable under Section 111A where the assessee qualifies under the prescribed income limit and follows settled Tribunal rulings.
Tribunal ruled that questions relating to loans and advances are matters for assessment proceedings and not sufficient grounds to reject renewal of registration. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application.
The ITAT Jaipur held that a remittance received from a foreign employer under a retirement plan did not amount to concealment of foreign income or assets. It deleted the Rs.10 lakh penalty after accepting the assessee’s bona fide explanation.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act was not justified where foreign bank deposits arose from overseas employment income and related interest was regularly disclosed in India. The Tribunal treated the omission as a bona fide mistake based on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessments initiated under Section 153C were time-barred under every possible computation of limitation. The assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C requires the AO of the other person to independently assess whether seized documents have a bearing on that person’s income. A mechanical satisfaction note based solely on another officer’s communication was held invalid.
