The Mumbai ITAT held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only Rs. 2,03,816, below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold. The reassessment and consequential additions were quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued beyond three years where the alleged escaped income is less than ₹50 lakh. The reassessment proceedings were therefore declared invalid and quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Service Tax could not be recovered again from the recipient under RCM when the transporter had already collected and deposited the tax. The demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO under the unamended Section 55A. Since the reference itself was invalid, the addition based on the DVOs valuation could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A effective from 01.07.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14. As a result, the DVO reference made for AY 2012-13 was held invalid and the addition was deleted.
ITAT Surat held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO where the assessee had adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer’s report. The LTCG addition was deleted.
