This case clarifies that eligibility for the Section 80-IA deduction must be verified project-by-project, irrespective of a taxpayer’s status in a previous year. The Tribunal held that only projects previously approved by the Settlement Commission are eligible, requiring fresh scrutiny for all new or unverified contracts.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of a senior NRI, condoning the 1695-day delay because the assessment order was served on a corporate email that became inactive after his contract ended. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after issuing notice to the taxpayer’s correct personal email, highlighting the priority of natural justice over strict delay excuses.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
This case addresses the disallowance of employees’ PF and ESI contributions deposited after the due dates specified in the respective Acts, following the Supreme Court’s Checkmate Services decision. The ITAT required a fresh verification to allow the deduction if the payments were made within 15 days of the actual salary disbursement.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the CIT(A)’s order concerning a large disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on advertising payments. The Tribunal remanded the matter, granting the agency a fresh opportunity to rely on CBDT Circulars that clarify the TDS obligations of intermediaries paying media houses.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT s rejection order, ruling that the delay in filing the ITR for AY 2022-23 was due to the genuine hardship caused by the taxpayers sons death. The key takeaway is that Section 119(2)(b) must be applied compassionately, and the CPC is now directed to process the belated return.
Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenues petition, holding that a subsequent change in law (like Checkmate Services SC verdict) cannot be a ground for rectifying a concluded ITAT order under Section 254(2).
The ITAT Mumbai annulled a Section 148 reassessment notice for AY 2018-19, finding the sanction invalid because it was approved by the PCIT instead of the statutorily mandated PCCIT. The ruling strictly applies the Vodafone Idea doctrine, confirming that a jurisdictional defect in the sanctioning authority after three years is fatal to the entire proceeding.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
