Since the assessment order did not refer to initiating penalty under Section 271D, the Court held the penalty void. This reinforces that penalty jurisdiction arises only from recorded satisfaction.
The Tribunal ruled that incidental foreign expenditure does not bar 80G approval, emphasizing that only the main charitable activities’ genuineness matters for registration.
The Court found that the return filed under Section 153A contained full disclosure submitted prior to initiation of penalty proceedings. It held that such disclosure satisfied legal requirements, leaving no basis for penalty.
The Court found that reassessment must proceed through the faceless regime and not through a jurisdictional officer. Since the notice was issued in breach of this mandate, both the notice and assessment order were quashed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order taxing Rs. 10 lakh received from HUF, emphasizing verification of the gift and HUF status before determining taxability under section 56(2)(vii).
CESTAT Chennai held that order holding appeals to be time-barred is set aside since period spent honestly and diligently by a litigant prosecuting a proceeding before a wrong forum is to be excluded while computing limitation.
The Supreme Court ruled that ICCs can inquire into complaints against employees from different departments, ensuring procedural protections under the POSH Act are maintained for aggrieved women.
Addition of Rs. 2.82 lakh for deemed rent was maintained due to lack of credible evidence from the assessee. Loan interest is to be reconsidered after proper document submission.
Delhi High Court stayed the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, allowing filing of appeal against assessment order without further pre-deposit, pending departmental adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verification, remanding the case for limited review of TDS and expense records.
