ITAT Chennai held that an appeal filed under the Black Money Act with a 5-day delay cannot be condoned without a notarised affidavit supporting the delay. The appeal was dismissed in limine, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Discover why ULIPs offer better returns, flexibility, and dual benefits compared to tradition-al savings plans, making them ideal for long-term wealth creation.
Women face unique health risks like maternity, hormonal changes, and female-specific ill-nesses. Tailored insurance ensures comprehensive coverage and financial protection throughout life.
Since the CIT(E) had already accepted the assessed income by issuing Form 4 under the DTVSV Scheme, initiating revision later was held impermissible. Key takeaway: once settled under DTVSV, the assessment cannot be reopened through Section 263.
The appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as the assessee submitted all relevant documents to the AO. Written submissions and VAT summaries are not additional evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT’s sanction under section 151 was granted before the AO recorded reasons to reopen the assessment, violating mandatory procedural requirements. As the jurisdictional defect went to the root, the section 148 notice and entire section 147 reassessment were declared void ab initio.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO had conducted detailed enquiries into long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, and the PCIT’s revision under section 263 was based only on an audit objection. Since the AO’s view was plausible and well-supported, the revisional action was unsustainable and quashed.
Explore why Public Notices, while guiding trade, cannot override statutes or alter private contracts, as affirmed by the Kerala High Court.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
