The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
The issue was the summary dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite giving only a one-day notice for hearing and a timely adjournment request. The ITAT ruled that dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back, emphasizing the requirement for adequate opportunity of hearing in appellate proceedings.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹14 lakh cash deposit addition during demonetization, ruling that retaining cash from duly accounted sources for a long period is not grounds for suspicion.
The ITAT Pune set aside the rejection of ZLS Foundation’s S.12AB charitable registration application, ruling that the CIT(E) must provide a final opportunity to address specific defects (like lack of beneficiary details and community focus), upholding natural justice.
In a case involving a slum rehabilitation developer who did not file a return or maintain books, ITAT Pune applied a 12% estimated net profit rate on total gross receipts of Rs.1,93,64,405 to compute taxable income. This decision provides a precedent for estimating income in the construction sector where audited accounts are unavailable, allowing for usual business deductions.
The ITAT Pune condoned a 631-day delay citing financial seizure under the Mst. Katiji principle, restoring the appeal concerning Rs. 29 Lakh interest disallowance and ad-hoc cash addition back to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing.
The ITAT Pune Bench set aside an ex-parte capital gains order, granting a non-filer taxpayer a final chance to present evidence for ₹2.03 Cr in land improvement costs to the CIT(A).
The ITAT Pune substantially reduced a penalty under Rs. 271(1)(b), ruling that issuing successive notices for the same set of information constitutes only a single, continuing default, not multiple independent offenses. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the initial non-compliance, deleting the balance Rs. 30,000.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
