The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
The Tribunal emphasized that exemption cannot be denied on assumptions. It restored the case to the AO for limited verification, reinforcing evidence-based assessment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal ruled that professional consultancy services rendered by a UAE resident are protected under Article 14 of the India–UAE DTAA. In absence of a fixed base or sufficient stay in India, exclusive taxing rights rest with the UAE.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed after the assessee’s death, without impleading legal heirs, is a nullity in law. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with section 159
Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Central Circle Cannot Assume Reassessment Powers — Section 148 Notice Issued Outside Faceless Regime Held Void The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under Section 147 and consequential penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC in the case of Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi v. ACIT, holding that […]
The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) based on a forged revised return is appealable. It directed a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file the correct return, reaffirming that technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
ITAT held that Section 50C proviso is retrospective, allowing stamp duty value as on the agreement date where consideration was fixed earlier, significantly reducing LTCG exposure.
The issue was the validity of a penalty notice combining concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT ruled that vague notices violate natural justice and quashed the penalty.
The ITAT held that equity share purchases routed through the disclosed bank account cannot be treated as unexplained without proper verification. The AO was directed to provide transaction details and re-examine the source to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
