"CA Rajesh Kumar ."
The Tribunal held that a common, perfunctory sanction under Section 153D is invalid. The key takeaway is that lack of independent application of mind vitiates search assessments entirely.
Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained where confirmations, bank statements, and tax returns establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness through banking channels.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked during a pending appeal. ITAT held that PCIT lacks jurisdiction once the matter is before CIT(A).
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer conducted exhaustive enquiries and applied his mind in a 153C assessment, revision under section 263 is invalid. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
ITAT held that share capital additions cannot rest on an inspector’s report not shared with the assessee. Matter remanded for fresh examination in line with natural justice.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the extended period under TOLA were valid. The Tribunal held that post–Rajeev Bansal, notices beyond the surviving limitation are time-barred and void.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
