Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
Explains how errors in Table 7, especially 17(5) reversals and Column H issues, trigger schema validation failures despite correct data and offers safe workarounds.
A company and its directors were penalized under Section 450 for distributing an excess interim dividend due to miscalculated tax provisions, highlighting the need for accurate financial reporting.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
NCLAT Delhi held that Prospective Resolution Applicant or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant doesn’t have vested right to challenge a resolution process or an approved resolution plan. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
NCLAT Chennai grants extended period of 60 days to make full and final payment for execution of Scheme of Arrangement. Accordingly, order is quashed and extension of 60 days is allowed.
