The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
Government proposes draft amendments to Trade Marks Rules 2017 introducing a Code of Conduct, disciplinary procedures, and complaint mechanism for agents.
Govt proposes amendments to Patent Rules 2003 introducing Code of Conduct, disciplinary procedures, and complaint mechanisms for patent agents.
Section 44AA mandates books for professionals and businesses exceeding income thresholds. Details presumptive tax rules, required records, retention period, and ₹25,000 penalty.
The ITAT Dehradun quashed an entire reassessment, holding the mandatory notice under Section 148 invalid because it was sent to an old postal address and a wrong email ID. The ruling confirms that non-service of the foundational notice renders all subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad invalidated the entire Section 143(1) intimation because the CPC made an adjustment regarding the leave encashment exemption without issuing the mandatory prior notice. The Tribunal held that the failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is a violation of audi alteram partem and renders the proceedings invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹10.64 crore addition for bogus purchases without obtaining Assessing Officer’s comments on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.
The ITAT Dehradun ruled that deposits in employees’ bank accounts, even when handled by the business, cannot be treated as the employer’s unexplained income under Section 69A. Following a precedent in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal confirmed these amounts belong to the employees.
