The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal held such additions invalid, ruling that proceedings must be initiated under section 153C.
The issue was reopening beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as there was no finding of failure to disclose material facts, a mandatory precondition under the proviso to section 147.
The issue was whether delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions paid before filing the return could be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Checkmate Services is declaratory and applies to earlier years, mandating disallowance.
The issue was whether long-term financing income qualified for deduction despite reclassification of receipts. The Tribunal held the entity eligible, citing statutory changes, past approvals, and consistency across years.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could enhance income by adding entire purchases when the AO had only made a small commission addition. The Tribunal held that such enhancement, without fresh material and beyond the subject matter of appeal, is illegal.
The issue was whether a reassessment could survive when reasons were recorded after issuing notice. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked prior satisfaction, rendering the entire proceedings void.
The issue was whether a holding company with no operating revenue could claim business expenses. The Tribunal held that making strategic investments to control subsidiaries is itself a business activity, allowing expenses and loss set-off.
Delhi ITAT held that issuing notice under section 148 before recording reasons and obtaining approval is a fatal jurisdictional defect. Reassessment initiated without prior satisfaction was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable when earned by a State instrumentality. Since it was assessed as “income from other sources,” the trade-or-business exception under Article 289(2) did not apply.
Kolkata ITAT held that mere suspicion or self-made vouchers cannot justify ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses. Without evidence that expenditure was illegal or prohibited, Section 37 disallowance cannot survive.
