The Tribunal assessed compliance with revised reassessment provisions post Finance Act, 2021. It ruled that sanction by a lower authority after three years is non-est in law, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were held insufficient without corroborative evidence. The Board stressed admissibility and evidentiary standards. The ruling protects professionals from weak evidentiary claims.
CIT(A) remanded a completed scrutiny assessment even after the AO accepted additional evidence in remand. ITAT ruled this exceeded statutory powers and restored the case to CIT(A) for a merits-based decision.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and retracted statements lacked corroboration, leading to deletion of the ₹100 crore addition.
The Tribunal held that dispatch records alone do not establish valid service of intimation under section 143(1). Rectification under section 154 must be considered on merits where service is disputed.
The ITAT ruled that taxing section 28 interest as income from other sources through rectification was invalid. Where the issue is debatable and supported by binding precedent, section 154 cannot be invoked.
The issue was whether section 68 additions could survive when loans were already repaid. The Tribunal held that once the assessee is no longer a beneficiary, such additions are unsustainable.
The tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and adopted a plausible legal view. The PCIT cannot substitute his opinion merely because another interpretation is possible.
