The Tribunal found repeated factual errors in recorded reasons and notices. As the reopening lacked live nexus with escapement of income, it was struck down as a nullity.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash introduced by partners as capital contribution in an LLP does not attract Section 269SS and therefore penalty under Section 271D was invalid.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
ITAT held that for reassessment beyond three years, approval must be obtained from the PCCIT under Section 151. Sanction from PCIT was held invalid, rendering the notice and assessment void.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of ₹19.09 Cr addition, ruling 8% ad-hoc profit on ₹353.68 Cr turnover unjustified; non-resident shipping vendors’ nil ITRs no basis to reject books.
The Tribunal upheld addition of interest accrued on security deposits that was not disclosed in the return. It ruled that accrued interest must be taxed when not voluntarily offered by the assessee.
ITAT held that notice under Section 143(2) issued contrary to CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 is invalid. Since CBDT circulars are binding, the defective notice vitiated the entire assessment.
ITAT held that labeling transactions as accommodation entries without investigation is impermissible. With all three ingredients satisfied, the addition of ₹86.90 lakh was removed.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted the ₹14.70 lakh addition made under Section 69, holding that the NRI assessee had adequately explained the source of investment in property through documented overseas remittances routed partly via his mothers bank account.
ITAT held that mere signature or rubber-stamp approval under Section 151 is invalid if it does not reflect independent satisfaction. The reassessment and consequent additions were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
