ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently been treated as a charitable trust since 1973, as evidenced by assessment orders. Therefore, the registration should be effective from the original date of 13.08.1973.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the charge and both limbs of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars were mentioned without striking off the inapplicable one. The Tribunal also noted that the additions made in the assessment order were deleted in appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the charge and both limbs of concealment and inaccurate particulars were mentioned without striking off the inapplicable one. The Tribunal also noted that additions made in assessment were deleted in appellate proceedings, making the penalty levy unsustainable.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed forms under the 'Kar Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' and therefore did not wish to pursue the current appeal. As the departmental representative did not object, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's action. The core issue is whether the services provided by the US company qualify as 'fees for technical services' taxable in India under the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's action. The core issue is whether the services rendered by the US company constitute 'fees for technical services' taxable in India under the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was incorrect as it should have been under Section 153C, given the search and seizure in another entity. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination of the third party violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO without any fresh material. This is not a valid ground for reopening the assessment.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order on merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.