The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings after holding that approval was granted by the PCIT instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii). The Court applied its earlier ruling and set aside the order and notice.
The Supreme Court held that a mortgage redemption suit filed before expiry of the agreed mortgage term must fail. It set aside the remand order and restored the dismissal of the suit as premature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s contention regarding ownership of the bank account required proper verification before sustaining the addition under Section 69A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be initiated without incriminating material relating to the specific assessment year. It quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay was supported by sufficient cause, including the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation orders and an error by the assessee’s counsel. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by applying the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation directions. It also allowed the Foreign Tax Credit claim by following earlier judicial precedents.
The case concerned denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely due to delayed filing of Form No. 67. The Tribunal followed earlier precedents and directed that the credit be granted after verification.
The Tribunal held that additions relating to share capital and share premium required fresh examination after considering the assessee’s documentary evidence and offer to produce investor-company directors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
