The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a compulsory notice under section 153C lacks jurisdiction. Even seized material cannot cure this foundational defect, rendering the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that reassessment is invalid where the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Absence of a valid and timely notice strikes at the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment based on mechanical approval is invalid in law. Sanction must reflect independent application of mind by the approving authority.
The issue was whether stamp duty value as on registration could override actual consideration received earlier. The Tribunal held that section 50C is a machinery provision and cannot be applied mechanically to post-transfer market increases.
The Tribunal held that incorrect selection of a clause in Form 10AB is a curable clerical mistake. Registration applications cannot be rejected without examining the trust’s objects and activities on merits.
ITAT Delhi ruled that expiry of limitation only bars recovery and does not extinguish the debt itself. Outstanding loans remain liabilities unless expressly waived by lenders.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer could issue a reassessment notice only within the balance days available after excluding the stayed period. Issuance beyond that surviving window renders the notice time-barred.
ITAT Delhi ruled that granting a common approval for several assessment years violates statutory safeguards. Search assessments collapse if approval is mechanical or omnibus in nature.
The Tribunal ruled that registration cannot be cancelled for non-maintenance of separate books when that allegation was never put to the assessee. Authorities must specify the exact clause of specified violation relied upon.
The Tribunal found that the AO had examined land records, crop sale documents, and other evidence before making the assessment. Since due inquiry was conducted, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
