It was ruled that reassessment proceedings must be initiated only through the faceless mechanism after the CBDT notification under section 151A. The concept of concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO was expressly rejected.
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had no individual business in electronic goods. In the absence of incriminating material and with sales recorded by the company, the addition was deleted.
Upholding the appellate order, the Tribunal ruled that section 68 applies only to credits of the relevant year. Opening balances and prior period adjustments cannot be taxed as unexplained income in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
ITAT held that Section 68 cannot be invoked where donors are identified with names, PAN, ITRs, and confirmations. Such donations cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits or anonymous income.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
