The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that TOLA extended the time for issuing notice, holding that for A.Y. 2015-16 the limitation expired on 31.03.2019. Consequently, the 21.04.2021 notice lacked legal authority. Key takeaway: TOLA does not revive time-barred assessments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B must be deleted because the quantum addition on which it depended was no longer in existence. With the foundational assessment gone, the penalty had no legal justification. The decision underscores the principle that penalty actions fail when their basis disappears.
The ITAT Rajkot ruled that exporters with turnover below ₹10 crore are equally eligible for 80HHC deductions, following the Supreme Court’s Avani Exports ratio. The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments cannot deny benefits to smaller exporters. The full deduction claimed by the assessee was restored, overturning AO and CIT(A) adjustments.
Given the assessee’s admission of incorrect turnover and failure to get accounts audited, the Tribunal found income estimation justified. However, finding that the AO’s 4% rate was slightly high and unsupported by specific defects, it revised the rate to 3.5%. Key takeaway: estimation must be justified and proportionate to facts on record.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
The Tribunal ruled that duty drawback income recognized on cash receipt basis cannot be taxed on accrual, as consistent accounting practice caused no revenue loss.
The Tribunal held that AO must recompute capital gains considering purchase cost, indexation, and stamp duty, instead of merely adding the section 50C deemed value difference.
ITAT Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
The Tribunal found that notices lacking classification as limited, complete, or manual scrutiny violated CBDT instructions. As a result, the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed as void ab initio.
ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the AO has already examined the issues and applied his mind. Key takeaway: Mere preference for deeper enquiry does not make an assessment erroneous.
