The tribunal ruled that an assessment order signed manually instead of digitally in e-proceedings violates binding CBDT instructions and is legally void.
The Tribunal held that TCS credit cannot be denied when tax was collected from the assessee, even if the collector failed to deposit it.
The Tribunal ruled that a mere disallowance of depreciation, with full disclosure of facts, does not attract penalty under Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
ITAT ruled that cash recorded in a partner’s name during survey cannot be taxed in his hands when the amounts relate to the firm’s land sales and are recorded in the firm’s books. The key takeaway: assess income in the correct entity.
ITAT held that the obligation to receive cash was rooted in an agreement executed before the 2015 amendment to Section 269SS. Since reasonable cause existed, penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved substantial upgrades to a semi-constructed house using bills and contractor records. It allowed the ₹4.05 crore indexed improvement cost, rejecting the AO’s suspicion-based disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand a limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without written approval from the Principal CIT. Additions under Sections 2(22)(e) and 69A were struck down, reaffirming that CBDT instructions are mandatory.
