The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The Tribunal noted that loans were part of regular business transactions with repayments in the same year. It held that such conduct strengthens the claim of genuineness. The case highlights the relevance of transaction pattern in tax scrutiny.
The issue was whether entire purchases can be disallowed as bogus under Section 69C. The tribunal held that when sales are accepted, only the profit element (15%) can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical disallowances, and held CBDT instructions cannot override the Income-tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that application for NIL withholding tax certificate rightly rejected since matter of taxability of fees for technical services [FTS] rendered from China for previous assessment years is already pending before ITAT. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
ITAT held that absence of an irrevocability clause cannot justify rejection of 80G approval. The case was remanded to CIT(E) to reconsider in line with binding High Court ruling.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
