Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology trust v.Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271AAB: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Not specifying the charge-Omnibus notice betrays application of mind by the AO-Entire penalty proceedings right from issue of notice to imposition of penalty are ab initio void-Penalty quashed. [S.274]

DCIT v. Sahil Vachani (2025) 236 TTJ 137 / 126 ITR 172/ 175 taxmann.com 979 (Delhi)(TM)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty]-Concealment-Surrender of claim of exemption under s. 54F-Debatable issue-Not liable for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.[S.54F]

St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology Trust v. Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Non-specification of charge/fault in the show-cause notice-Absence of proper charge vitiates the penalty notices-Levy of penalty was quashed. [S. 274]

Arjun Das Jasuja v. CIT (2025) 236 TTJ 373 (Ahd)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Cost of improvement]-Allowed the claim after verification-AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 45, 55(1)(b)(2)]

DCIT v. Sahil Vachani (2025) 236 TTJ 137 / 126 ITR 172/ 175 taxmann.com 979 ((Delhi)(TM)(Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Information gathered from the Google search engine cannot be the basis for arriving at a decision-Tribunal cannot bring new facts on record, specially gathered from external sources/public domain, which do not form part of the orders passed by the lower authorities without confronting the same to the assessee.

Arun Gopilal SamnanI v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib) Bhargavkumar Parsottambhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 253: Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Filing fee-Old regime or new regime]-No variation on quantification on assessed income-In terms of provisions of S 253(6), Clause (d) is applicable: filing fees only Rs 500; no defect in filing fees]-Delay of 71 days in filing an appeal was condoned. [S.115BC, 253(6)(d), 254(1)]

The Zoos & Parks Authority Of Telangana v.Dy.CIT (E) (2025) 236 TTJ 117/ 174 taxmann.com 1136 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure-Condonation of delay-Refusal to condonation of delay and decision on merits-Once the appeal is not admitted on account of delay, the CIT(A) cannot proceed to decide the issue on merit-When CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit despite the delay in filing the appeal, it is deemed or implied that the CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. [S. 249(3), 251, 253]

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 14 / 174 taxmann.com 219 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure]-Duty Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss appeal on account of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee Duty-bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits, on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds of appeal-Order of the CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to pass de novo order as per law, in accordance with law. [250(6), 251 (2)]

Institute of Nephrourology v. DCIT (E) (2025) 236 TTJ 623 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Condonation of delay]-Delay of 5 years and 19 days-Reasonable cause-Order of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal of the assessee is quashed, and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its own merits.[S.250, 254(1)]

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamit v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 379 (Panaji)

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Assessment-Prima facie adjustment under s. 143(1)(a)-Co-Operative society]-Denial as was authorised by Finance Act, 2021 was well within the provisions of law-Adjustment was held to be valid]-Rejection of rectification application was held to be justified. [S.80AC(ii), 80P, 143(1)(a)(v)]