ITAT Patna Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated on a wrong charge. The notice under Section 274 specified concealment of income, whereas the facts indicated furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, making the penalty proceedings illegal and void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated on a wrong charge. The notice under Section 274 specified concealment of particulars, but the facts indicated furnishing of inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty proceedings illegal and void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated on a wrong charge. The notice under Section 274 specified concealment of income, whereas the facts indicated furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, making the penalty proceedings illegal and void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated on a wrong charge. The notice under Section 274 specified concealment of income, whereas the facts indicated furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, making the penalty proceedings illegal and void-ab-initio.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also admitted the evidence placed before it and restored the issue of genuineness of sundry creditors to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding the rejection of their immunity application. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is leviable only when books of accounts are maintained and not audited. If no books of accounts are maintained, the penalty should be under Section 271A. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is leviable only when books of accounts are maintained and not audited. If no books of accounts are maintained, the penalty should be under Section 271A. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is leviable only when books of accounts are maintained and not audited. If no books of accounts are maintained, the penalty should be under Section 271A. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is leviable only when books of accounts are maintained and not audited. If no books of accounts are maintained, the penalty should be under Section 271A. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. The claim for FTC should not be denied for a procedural delay when the information is verifiable and the claim is bonafide.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is leviable only when books of accounts are maintained and not audited. If no books of accounts are maintained, the penalty should be under Section 271A. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if income is estimated under Section 44AD at 8% of gross turnover, separate disallowances are not required. The assessee's grounds of appeal were general and lacked specific pleading.

The Tribunal held that once tax liability is settled before the Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to disturb that determination. The CIT(Appeals) had correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities but had submitted relevant documents before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside for failing to adjudicate on merits and for not following mandatory procedures.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the prior decision on the same issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the inclusion of interest income in book profit for partner remuneration. The AO's disallowance under Section 154 was not an apparent mistake from the record.

The Tribunal held that while the ex-parte assessment was not illegal, the reliance on the valuer's report without proper reference to the DVO under Section 142A was an irregularity. The Tribunal also directed re-examination of sale agreements and payments received prior to sale deeds for Section 43CA implications.

The Tribunal held that while the ex-parte assessment was not illegal, the reliance on the valuer's report without proper reference to the DVO under Section 142A was an irregularity. The Tribunal also directed re-examination of sale agreements and payments received prior to sale deeds for Section 43CA implications.

The Tribunal held that while the ex-parte assessment was not illegal, the reliance on the valuer's report without proper reference to the DVO under Section 142A was an irregularity. The Tribunal also directed re-examination of sale agreements and payments received prior to sale deeds for Section 43CA implications.

The Tribunal held that while the ex-parte assessment was not illegal, the reliance on the valuer's report without proper reference to the DVO under Section 142A was an irregularity. The Tribunal also directed re-examination of sale agreements and payments received prior to sale deeds for Section 43CA implications.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was questionable, especially since notices were not properly served on the assessees at their correct addresses. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after allowing the assessees to raise objections regarding jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was questionable, especially since notices were not properly served on the assessees at their correct addresses. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after allowing the assessees to raise objections regarding jurisdiction.