The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that a 148 notice issued on 03.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 violated Section 149(1)(b)’s six-year limitation, rendering entire reassessment void. The is that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
The bank invites CA firms for conducting a concurrent audit of its Mumbai treasury operations, ensuring compliance with RBI guidelines and strengthening internal controls and risk management.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
MCA introduces a detailed point system for empanelment of CA firms/LLPs, assessing partners, employees, experience, qualifications, and professional track record to ensure competent auditors for companies and statutory bodies.Selection of Auditors Tied to Firm Capacity and Experience
Court held that barter transactions between Jammu & Kashmir and PoK qualify as intra-state supplies, making GST applicable. The ruling upholds Section 74 notices as valid and directs traders to pursue statutory remedies.
ITAT held that delay must be assessed from the date of service, condoned a 474-day delay, and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the 42-day delay on merits.
Court held that reopening was invalid because officer ignored that depreciation on goodwill had already been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based solely on audit objections without independent evaluation.
The ITAT held that crucial documents unavailable earlier must be considered, admitting them under Rule 29 and sending the ₹2.38 crore addition back for fresh examination.
The Court ruled that reassessment could not be initiated based on audit objections containing factual errors and overlooking prior accepted depreciation. The decision underscores that reopening must be based on proper evaluation of facts, not mere audit remarks.
