The ITAT held that reassessment following a search was valid because statements recorded during search constituted fresh tangible material. The ruling distinguished reassessment from a mere “change of opinion.”
The Supreme Court restored execution proceedings after finding that the decree already contained directions for sale of the property if partition by metes and bounds was impossible. The Court ruled that further final decree proceedings were unnecessary in the facts of the case.
Mumbai ITAT held that unsecured loans received through banking channels and fully recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A merely on suspicion. The addition and consequential interest disallowance were deleted in full.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely because a liability remains unpaid for a long period. In absence of any waiver, remission, or cessation of liability, the addition was rightly deleted.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation under Section 149. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment proceedings and assessment order.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(E) failed to properly consider the assessees replies, documents, and objections before rejecting the Section 12AB application. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.
ITAT Bangalore held that the presence of associate or nominal members does not disqualify a co-operative society from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Delhi ITAT held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incriminating material is invalid under Section 153C. The Tribunal consequently quashed all related assessments.
Delhi ITAT held that unsecured loans already forfeited and offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year cannot again be taxed under Section 68 in the year of receipt. The Tribunal ruled that such action would result in impermissible double taxation.
