The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
The Court found that the explanation regarding dividend income was on record but not examined. Reopening based on an incorrect recording of facts was held to be invalid.
The issue was whether a DRP-based assessment passed after the statutory period survives. The Tribunal held the delay fatal and quashed the assessment in entirety.
The issue was whether settled losses could be ignored in a search assessment without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that the AO must start from the last assessed income and allow already determined losses.
The issue was erroneous recomputation of LTCG causing double taxation. The Tribunal held that credit for LTCG already declared must be given and indexation cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
The issue was whether a decree against an HUF can be executed against the Karta’s personal assets. The Bombay High Court held that a Karta has unlimited personal liability for unsatisfied HUF debts, permitting execution beyond HUF assets.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on unverified Investigation Wing inputs, factual inconsistencies, and no direct nexus to the assessee’s transactions is invalid. Mechanical reproduction of information cannot sustain reassessment.
Rejecting contradictory treatment, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the lender’s scrutiny while taxing the borrower under section 68. The addition was therefore deleted.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings for seven years could rest on a single satisfaction note. ITAT held that absence of year-wise satisfaction vitiates jurisdiction, quashing all assessments.
The Tribunal confirmed that post-2021 reassessment notices must strictly comply with amended section 151. Non-compliance with the specified approving authority deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction.
