The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, emphasizing that the Assessee deserved a proper opportunity to argue their case on merits despite missing the final notices.1 The matter was sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision, with the Assessee directed to cooperate fully.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order, holding that the AO’s decision to allow Section 80G deduction on voluntarily disallowed CSR expenses was a plausible view. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court principle that Section 263 revision cannot be invoked merely for holding an alternate opinion.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC disallowing the co-operative society’s Section 80P claim was bad in law for pre-A.Y. 2021-22 years. The ruling confirms that for earlier years, the AO could not summarily deny this deduction through an intimation order.
ITAT Mumbai held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was premature when the related quantum appeal was still pending, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai quashed a Rs.10 lakh penalty under Black Money Act, ruling that DDIT(Inv.) lacked necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to impose penalties exceeding ₹5 lakh. Decision strictly enforces CBDT guidelines, which reserve penalty proceedings requiring JCIT approval for regular Assessing Officer, deeming DDIT(Inv.) order as being without jurisdiction.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeals under the Black Money Act as withdrawn after the assessee received full relief from the CIT(A), who deleted the additions on the merits of beneficial ownership. Since the Department did not challenge the relief, the assessee chose not to pursue the technical and jurisdictional grounds before the Tribunal.
Since Netflix India functioned solely as a limited-risk distributor of access, not as a licensee of content or technology, therfore, TNMM benchmarking was accepted, and the royalty-based TP adjustment of ₹444.93 crores was unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
