The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are legally unsustainable. Since jurisdiction itself failed under TOLA principles, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The issue was whether SEZ deduction could be denied for alleged late filing of Form 56F. The Tribunal held that filing within the CBDT-extended deadline was valid and CPC erred in disallowance. The ruling confirms that statutory extensions must be honoured in return processing.
The issue was whether payments received by private firms were genuine business income or tainted funds. The Tribunal held that advance payments and manipulated tendering showed diversion of NRHM money, justifying attachment.
The Supreme Court reinstated a judicial officer removed solely for granting bail without citing a statute in four cases. The Court emphasized that judicial errors alone cannot justify disciplinary action and awarded full back wages.
The case examined whether properties mortgaged with banks could be released from attachment. The Tribunal ruled that repayment of loans using illicit funds justified attachment to preserve assets for confiscation.
The issue was whether statements and digital records from Customs probes could support FEMA action. The Tribunal ruled they are admissible and sufficient to establish illegal foreign exchange payments.
The case examined whether penalty quantum should reflect the appellant’s role in the transaction. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after noting the dominant involvement of a third party and lack of comprehensive investigation.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
The issue was whether a buyer could be taxed for alleged cash payment based only on the seller’s admission. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no on-money addition can be sustained in the buyer’s hands.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
