The ITAT quashed a scrutiny assessment because the Rs.143(2) notice was issued by the ITO, a junior officer, despite the declared corporate income exceeding the Rs. 30 Lakh metro city limit. Jurisdiction for issuing the notice and conducting the assessment belonged solely to the DCIT, making the entire proceeding illegal.
The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. Following Calcutta High Court precedents, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s attempt to apply the prospective Finance Act 2022 amendment to the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15).
The Tribunal held that the DTAA overrides the Income Tax Act, and income taxed abroad cannot be taxed again in India. The ITAT rejected the view that authorities lack power to condone delay, allowing the FTC claim after verification of the eventually filed Form 67.
The ITAT ruled that loss from trading in foreign currency derivatives on a recognized exchange is non-speculative business loss, eligible for set-off under Section 43(5)(d). The Tribunal held that such transactions are covered by the exception for derivatives and rejected the lower authorities’ mechanical disallowance.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment due to two fundamental defects: the 143(2) notice was invalid as it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (Limited/ Complete) per CBDT instructions, and the assessment was completed by the ACIT, who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the Rs.10.41 Lakh income case. The ruling stresses that procedural compliance with binding CBDT instructions is mandatory, or the entire assessment becomes void.
This decision emphasizes that violation of binding CBDT instructions, such as failing to specify the category of scrutiny in the Sec. 143(2) notice, strikes at the root of the assessment. The Kolkata Tribunal quashed the entire Sec. 143(3) assessment as being without jurisdiction, affirming that legal grounds can be raised at any stage.
Calcutta HC emphasized that uploading GST orders and proceedings on the official portal constitutes valid service under Section 169. Writ petition challenging the order without pursuing alternate remedies was dismissed with costs.
The court held that an impugned GST order was not properly uploaded under the “view notices and orders” tab, affecting the petitioner’s ability to respond. HC directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice with proper service and timeline for reply.
ITAT Chennai rules that the Section 54 capital gains deduction cannot be denied solely because sale proceeds weren’t deposited in CGAS before the return deadline, provided the amount is used within three years.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST summary demand order in Form DRC-07 is invalid if the mandatory show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 was not issued first, even if a preliminary notice (DRC-01A) was sent.
