Pune ITAT voids Rs 1 crore penalty against Karia Builders. Tribunal rules penalty proceedings are invalid if the underlying assessment is legally flawed and highlights the need for proper sanction for reassessment notices.
Calcutta High Court held that delay of 180 days in filing of an appeal before Tribunal condoned since Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate nor the assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting matter.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether land acquisition compensation received by a partnership firm is taxable, clarifying the scope of exemptions under the RFCTLAAR Act and related circulars.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against a penalty deletion, ruling it was not maintainable due to a low tax effect. The Tribunal held that the new CBDT Circulars, which do not include an exception for audit objections, are applicable to pending appeals.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order against Avia Xpert, ruling the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions was illegal due to a lack of prior notice and the issue being a debatable matter at the time.
ITAT Rajkot held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act for not getting books of accounts audited cannot be sustained since assessee has filed return u/s. 44AD and there is no need to maintain books of accounts u/s. 44AD.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether an assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue concerning cash deposits during the demonetization period, providing key clarifications on Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that since there was no effective service of orders upon the assessee as the order sent by the department went to spam folder. Thus, delay in filing of an appeal condoned and matter restored back to CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
If any assessment proceedings are to be initiated by AO by relying on any information found during search action conducted on third party, then the Dept must resort to special provisions of section 153C and notice issued u/s 148 in such scenario is bad in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of TDS credit merely because of non-reflection in Form 26AS is not justified since there could be varied technological or other reasons where the relevant data pertaining to the assessee doesn’t get reflected in Form 26AS.
