ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside an ex parte assessment and appellate order, restoring the case to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.1 The Tribunal granted this final opportunity on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.50,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the Section 68 addition of Rs.28.14 lakh made on cash deposits during demonetization, ruling that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the detailed documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The case was remanded for a fresh, de novo consideration after verifying all sales documents and cash flow.
The ITAT Delhi confirmed the addition of Rs.25.35 lakh as unexplained investment for a house purchase under Section 69, ruling that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loans allegedly received from his mother and sister. The lenders lacked sufficient bank balances, and documentation was incomplete.
SEBI’s September 2025 ICDR amendment mandates demat holdings for promoters, KMPs, and senior management before an IPO. Learn the impact on cap tables and foreign employees.
Learn how mandatory disclosures under SEBI’s ICDR Regulations, including valuation basis and KPI standards, drive investor sentiment and impact an IPO’s Grey Market Premium (GMP).
