ITAT Chennai deleted additions made in search assessments (u/s 153A), ruling that Income Tax Department cannot make additions without specific, incriminating material seized during search. Following Supreme Courts ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, Tribunal held that search assessments are not fishing expeditions and must be strictly limited to evidence found post-search.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeals under the Black Money Act as withdrawn after the assessee received full relief from the CIT(A), who deleted the additions on the merits of beneficial ownership.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.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
ITAT deleted a Rs.54.85 crore tax addition, holding that make available clause of the India’s DTAA was not satisfied because routine IT support did not enable Indian entity to apply technology without provider’s ongoing reliance. A key takeaway is that mere recurring service provision, even with technical input, does not constitute make available of know-how.
Pune ITAT ruled against adding the perquisite value of rent-free accommodation, finding that the amount was already included and taxed as part of the directors’ disclosed salary.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
The Gujarat High Court held that importers under the EPCG Scheme are entitled to IGST refunds for imports made between July and October 2017, following the Prince Spintex ruling.
Division Bench held that notices must be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), following Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and declared notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay in a GST appeal, citing the petitioner’s illness as sufficient cause, and directed the appellate authority to hear the case on merits.
