The High Court found no mistake apparent on record to warrant rectification under Section 254, holding that the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Section 80JJA deduction was neither perverse nor erroneous. The ruling clarifies that Section 254 cannot be used to re-argue the quantum or correctness of a deduction, especially one accepted historically.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
Karnataka High Court affirmed the ITATs decision, ruling that 81 appellate orders passed by the CIT(A)-11 after the DGIT (Investigation) had explicitly directed him not to pass further orders were without jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that such orders, passed in defiance of supervisory administrative restraint, are illegal and must be reheard de novo by a competent authority.
The Delhi ITAT invalidated a reassessment, ruling the AO failed to establish independent ‘reason to believe’ and merely borrowed satisfaction from an Investigation Wing report without tangible material or a live link to the assessee’s income. This judgment establishes that reassessment cannot be based solely on second-hand, non-incriminating information from a third-party search.
in a colourful observation, the Tribunal compared Juniper’s interlinked trading and service activities to the egg-or-chicken story, holding entity-level TNMM appropriate and deleting the TP addition.
ITAT Delhi set aside a non-speaking order by CIT(A) in a ₹34.82 lakh bogus purchase case, directing de novo adjudication and allowing cross-examination on alleged accommodation entries.
Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi) Loan or Land Grab?- Benami Land Purchase through Driver – Tribunal Calls Gurushree Minerals’ Deal a Benami Ruse- Tribunal Confirms Attachment of 30.6 Hectares of Tribal Land Bought by Company The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, vide Final Order dt. 14.10.2025 in […]
Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel, holding that questions on proceeds of crime must be decided by Appellate Tribunal first.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices issued beyond four years, finding AO had full knowledge of AE payments during original Section 143(3) scrutiny. Key takeaway is that re-examining previously disclosed facts or material known through TPO proceedings constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is invalid under Section 147.
ITAT Delhi sustained reopening under Section 147 but upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of every addition—covering commission income, travel expenses, rent, and salaries—after finding all claims duly supported by records. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed in full.
