The tribunal ruled that rejecting books and estimating profits bars further item-wise disallowances. Authorities cannot “blow hot and cold” by disallowing expenses from the same rejected records.
The tribunal held that sending notices through email despite the assessee expressly opting for physical service constituted sufficient cause for delay. Procedural lapses by tax authorities cannot deprive an assessee of the right to be heard.
The tribunal ruled that lack of digital literacy and non-receipt of electronic orders constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. A liberal approach was adopted to ensure substantial justice, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced 60% tax rate cannot apply to transactions before 01.04.2017. For AY 2017-18, unexplained cash additions relating to earlier transactions are taxable only at 30%.
The Tribunal ruled that once an appeal is rejected as time-barred, the appellate authority cannot adjudicate it on merits. A contradictory approach violates jurisdictional discipline and warrants remand.
ITAT ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected mechanically on alleged defects when records show compliance. The case was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication after proper hearing.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after April 2021 were valid. The Tribunal held that notices issued beyond the surviving time limit were barred, rendering all reassessment proceedings void.
The assessee sought relief citing internal lapses and adviser dependence. The Tribunal ruled that consistent audits and filings undermined claims of ignorance. Long delays require specific, convincing justification, which was absent.
