The Court ruled that an order passed over three years after the statutory deadline under Section 153(5) was without jurisdiction and void. It held that failure to act within the prescribed period renders the appellate order final and enforceable.
The High Court held that merely issuing a notice is insufficient if the assessee is not informed of further developments or given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in jurisdiction transfer matters.
The Kerala High Court condoned a 676-day delay in filing an ITAT appeal after finding that the assessee had bona fide relied on its auditors to file the appeal. The Court held that specific and plausible explanations indicating absence of deliberate inaction justified a liberal approach in the interest of justice.
The Chennai ITAT ruled that indexation benefits under Section 48 cannot be denied when construction details are already part of the registered sale deed. The Tribunal held that annexures forming part of the sale deed cannot be treated as additional evidence.
The Tribunal observed that reliance on third-party statements without providing cross-examination rendered the additions legally unsustainable. The judgment highlights the procedural safeguards available to taxpayers in search-related proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an invalid Section 148 notice were void ab initio. It observed that where jurisdiction itself is lacking, the proper course is to annul the proceedings rather than remand the matter. The decision underscores the mandatory nature of statutory limitation periods.
Bangalore ITAT held that the Revenue cannot deny the fifth-year deduction under Section 35D after consistently allowing the claim in previous years. The ruling reinforces the principle of consistency in tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent mistake in Schedule 112A relating to the acquisition period of mutual fund units could be rectified under Section 154. Since the evidence showed that the assets were acquired before 31.01.2018, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains after verification.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose paper lacking any connection with the taxpayer. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction, the reopening notice and reassessment order were set aside.
ITAT Delhi set aside the assessment after finding that the assessees additional evidence had not been properly scrutinized by the tax authorities. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice before sustaining additions.
