The reassessment was based on documents found during a search conducted on another person. The Tribunal held that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C and not under Sections 147/148, rendering the reassessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that documents relating to the assessee were found during the search of another person. It ruled that proceedings could only be initiated under Section 153C, making the reassessment under Section 148 invalid.
The ITAT held that once an assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, the earlier intimation under Section 143(1) merged into it. As a result, the appeal against the intimation became infructuous.
The ITAT held that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied merely due to issues relating to filing of Form No. 10. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief in accordance with law.
The ITAT held that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied solely due to delayed filing of Form 10B. The matter was remanded for verification and grant of eligible exemption.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment after the Assessing Officer received information linking the assessee to alleged accommodation entries. The Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment based on information received from the Kolkata Investigation Wing regarding alleged shell companies. The Court held that such information provided tangible material for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The case concerned reopening of completed income tax assessments based on information received from DRI and Central Excise authorities. The Delhi High Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to justify reassessment proceedings.
The case concerned a penalty order arising from alleged quantity discrepancies and missing supporting documents. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts view that factual issues should be examined by the appellate authority rather than through writ proceedings.
The Division Bench held that issues relating to weight discrepancy and penalty involved disputed questions of fact. The Court ruled that such matters should be decided through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than in writ proceedings.
