ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reassessment for AY 2008-09 because the notice under section 148 was issued after the statutory limitation period and contained a clerical error in the assessment year. The ruling underscores the necessity of strict procedural compliance for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that a reopening made after three years is void when approval is granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/CCIT. The entire reassessment and related disallowance were struck down.
The Tribunal held that advances originating from bank cash-credit facilities secured by the shareholder’s personal assets are commercial transactions, not deemed dividend. The addition under section 2(22)(e) was therefore removed.
The Tribunal held that once sale proceeds are reduced from the asset block under section 43(6)(c), no separate tax can be levied on book profit. The addition was deleted to prevent double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the 2022 amendment cannot shorten the utilization period for past accumulations. Only the unspent Rs.90,000 was taxable, not the entire Rs.6,75,000.
The Tribunal restricted on-money profits to 15%, deleted Transfer Pricing additions, and confirmed bogus purchase disallowances. Jurisdictional objections based on CBDT pecuniary instructions were rejected. The case provides guidance on treatment of search-assessment adjustments and substantiation requirements.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
ITAT held that a trust’s application for 80G approval cannot be rejected solely for having religious objects in its deed. The matter was remanded for fresh verification of actual religious expenditure.
ITAT remanded the unexplained cash credit addition for verification of full loan repayment, highlighting that repayment within a reasonable time negates the addition under section 68.
