The court held that the 2-year time limit under Section 54 is mandatory and binding on authorities. However, delay can be condoned by High Courts under Article 226 in genuine cases to grant rightful refunds.
A detailed comparison highlights how old sections are renumbered and reorganized under the new law. It shows that structure changes, but core tax principles remain largely unchanged.
The case involved estimated addition on agricultural income and dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution. ITAT held such dismissal invalid and ruled that arbitrary estimation without evidence cannot sustain.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The approach differs for pending, rejected, or delayed applications. Trusts must choose the right remedy based on procedural position.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The framework clarifies that relief from higher TDS/TCS applies only within specific timelines under CBDT circulars. PAN activation alone does not remove past demands automatically.
The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
The case examined if failure to conduct audit permits arbitrary profit estimation. The ITAT ruled that absence of audit alone cannot justify 8% estimation when books are maintained and not rejected.
The case involved addition for alleged on-money payment based on search findings of a builder. The ITAT ruled that absence of corroborative evidence and denial of cross-examination makes the addition unsustainable.
