The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
The Tribunal held that after 29-03-2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices under Section 148. Notices issued by a jurisdictional officer were declared void, vitiating the entire reassessment.
Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal by holding that interest incurred on borrowings used for project development must be capitalised. Absence of evidence showing alternative use of funds justified capitalization.
Kerala High Court held that Bank is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to senior citizen who has provided Form 15H. Accordingly, Bank cannot be considered as assessee in default for non-deduction of such TDS.
ITAT Bangalore rules that Section 80P deductions cannot be claimed if the return is filed after the due date. The decision reinforces compliance with Section 80AC(ii) and aligns with Madras HC precedent.
ITAT Bangalore directs reassessment with full hearing for an agriculturist after procedural lapses in notices and missed hearings. The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair opportunity under Sections 148 and 144B.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
