ITAT Ranchi deleted Section 270A penalties as the Assessing Officer did not specify the applicable statutory limb of under-reporting or misreporting.
The ITAT Ranchi held that a retired non-government employee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(10AA)(ii) for the entire leave encashment amount in view of CBDT Notification No. 31/2023. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the claim.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure without adequately verifying the records or confronting the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that estimating profit at 8% on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts was excessive considering the nature and margins of the electronics trading business. It reduced the estimated net profit rate to 3%.
The ITAT Ranchi held that additions for unsecured loans could not survive in the lender’s hands when the recipient company had already disclosed the entire amount as income. The Revenue’s inability to rebut this factual finding led to dismissal of the appeals.
The ITAT Ranchi held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot apply where the property purchase agreement was executed before the provision existed, even if the sale deed was registered later.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive when the notice fails to specify the exact charge or applicable clause. A vague and routine penalty notice violates mandatory legal requirements, rendering the penalty invalid.
The tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive when income is assessed purely on estimated gross profit after rejecting books. Additions based on estimation do not amount to under-reporting or misreporting of income.
The appeals involved common challenges to reassessment proceedings across several years. As CIT(A) had not ruled on these issues, the Tribunal ordered a remand for fresh decision.
Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) The ITAT Ranchi quashed the reassessment for AY 2013–14, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect. The assessee’s original assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny of share application money and share premium, including issuance of […]
