The issue was whether the AO could expand a limited scrutiny assessment into a complete scrutiny without approval. The ITAT held that such expansion is invalid without prior PCIT sanction.
The dispute involved alleged non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment procedure rendering the order non est. The ITAT held that remanding without ruling on section 144B(9) violations is impermissible.
The ITAT corrected its earlier order after noting that the liberty to reopen completed assessments under sections 147/148 was omitted. The ruling clarifies that absence of incriminating material bars search additions but not lawful reassessment.
The Tribunal remanded the MAT issue after noting lack of factual verification on whether reserve withdrawals were credited to the P&L account. Key takeaway: MAT adjustments under section 115JB require strict, evidence-based verification.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained despite full documentation. The ITAT held that once loans are repaid and identity and genuineness are proved, section 68 cannot be invoked.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
he assessee had already offered the same project income to tax in later years. The Tribunal held that taxing it again earlier would amount to double taxation. Key takeaway: timing disputes cannot justify taxing the same income twice.
Swaroop Kudalkar Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Pune) Ex-parte Assessment & NFAC Dismissal Set Aside in Legal Heir Case; Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication – ITAT Pune The Pune Bench of the ITAT, in Swaroop Kudalkar (Legal Heir of Late Roshan Kudalkar) vs. Assessment Unit (ITA No.2132/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21, order dated 18-12-2025), set aside the ex-parte […]
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
