ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid as approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
After taxing full buyback proceeds as dividend from October 2024, Budget 2026 restores capital gains taxation to correct structural distortions. The reform ensures only real gains are taxed and protects minority investors.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment beyond 3 years as approval under Sec 151(ii) was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT, rendering notice u/s 148 and entire proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption after the High Court condoned delay in filing Form 10B. It held that denial of relief due to technical lapse was unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
ITAT Mumbai quashed 143(3) order post-search, deleted ₹96.77L suppressed sales addition, allowed Sec 37(1) expenses & CWIP write-off as revenue in 153A assessment.
The Tribunal emphasized that technical breaches cannot defeat genuine exemption claims under Section 11. The appellate order confirming CPC’s denial was reversed.
The Tribunal ruled that rectification proceedings under Section 154 are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be a vehicle to dispute original additions. The appeal was therefore rightly rejected.
