The Delhi ITAT held that a reassessment notice digitally signed on 31 March 2021 but served on 1 April 2021 falls under the new Section 148A regime. Failure to follow mandatory reassessment procedures rendered the entire assessment void.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted additions under Section 69 after holding that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon against an assessee without allowing effective cross-examination.
ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized under Section 12(8) despite claims of temporary closure and health-related disruptions.
The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent filing mistakes in digitally signed forms can lead to penalties under Section 450.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that even inadvertent allotment of duplicate DIN attracts penalty under Section 159.
The Bangalore ITAT held that deduction under Section 80IA can be granted only if the income is genuinely derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. Mere classification of income under other sources does not automatically entitle an assessee to deduction.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT held that charitable trusts publishing and selling educational books do not lose Section 11 exemption merely because they earn surplus. Educational publishing activities were held distinct from commercial business activities.
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
