ITAT Kolkata held that an assessment under section 143(3) is invalid if the section 143(2) notice does not comply with CBDT prescribed formats. The ruling nullifies both the assessment and related revisionary proceedings.
ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be applied automatically under section 14A; the AO must record satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee’s suomoto disallowance, quashing the incremental disallowance.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
Karnataka HC held that a notice under Section 148A(b) providing less than the statutory seven days is void. All consequential assessments, penalties, and demands were quashed as a result.
The Karnataka High Court held that a charitable trust should not be denied exemption merely for a delayed Form 10B filing caused by genuine oversight. A hyper-technical rejection under Section 119(2)(b) was set aside in favour of a justice-oriented approach.
The Tribunal held that holding and operating a foreign bank account without RBI approval is a continuing contravention under FEMA. Subsequent repatriation or tax disclosure does not wipe out liability, and penalties were upheld.
The issue was whether failure to deposit unutilised capital gains in CGAS before the due date defeats Section 54B relief. The ITAT held that where eligible agricultural land is purchased within time and cheques are issued with sufficient balance, CGAS non-deposit is only procedural. Full exemption was therefore allowed.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
The issue was denial of charitable exemption due to alleged non-filing of Form 10B. The ITAT held that the audit report was filed on time and wrongly ignored by CPC. Substantive exemption under Section 11 was therefore restored.
The ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years fails when the reasons do not show the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts.
