The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is invalid. Such a defect strikes at the root of the assessment and cannot be cured.
The issue was whether handwritten lists and affidavits of relatives were sufficient to explain cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled that self-serving documents without independent corroboration carry no evidentiary value under PMLA.
The Supreme Court ruled that denying regularization to certain ad-hoc employees while others were regularized was discriminatory. The Court reinstated the affected staff and granted full employment benefits under Article 142.
The tribunal confirmed liability for Hawala transactions under FEMA but reduced the penalty from Rs. 23 Cr to Rs. 7 Cr, emphasizing proportionality in enforcement.
The ITAT held that capital gains under Section 50C cannot be mechanically applied where a sale deed is alleged to be an erroneous document and no real transfer occurred. The case was remanded to verify whether the transaction was actually a gift with no consideration or possession transfer.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot examine whether a cheque was issued for a debt while quashing proceedings. The statutory presumption under Section 139 must be rebutted only during trial.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that documented share transactions through recognised exchanges cannot be treated as bogus without contrary proof. General investigation reports and suspicion were held insufficient to sustain additions.
Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same survey material which was already accepted by AO in earlier proceedings is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.
