The Tribunal held that a 143(1)(a) adjustment denying ₹5.05 crore TDS credit was invalid because no mandatory show-cause intimation was issued. It ruled that a 139(9) defect notice cannot substitute the statutory opportunity required under 143(1), resulting in deletion of the entire ₹5.73 crore demand.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
The Tribunal held that a captive software development service provider cannot be compared with giant IT companies owning IP, diversified services, and global operations. By excluding these functionally dissimilar comparables, the entire ₹10.58 crore TP adjustment was deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that an appeal filed under the Black Money Act with a 5-day delay cannot be condoned without a notarised affidavit supporting the delay. The appeal was dismissed in limine, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Since the CIT(E) had already accepted the assessed income by issuing Form 4 under the DTVSV Scheme, initiating revision later was held impermissible. Key takeaway: once settled under DTVSV, the assessment cannot be reopened through Section 263.
The appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as the assessee submitted all relevant documents to the AO. Written submissions and VAT summaries are not additional evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT’s sanction under section 151 was granted before the AO recorded reasons to reopen the assessment, violating mandatory procedural requirements. As the jurisdictional defect went to the root, the section 148 notice and entire section 147 reassessment were declared void ab initio.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO had conducted detailed enquiries into long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, and the PCIT’s revision under section 263 was based only on an audit objection. Since the AO’s view was plausible and well-supported, the revisional action was unsustainable and quashed.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
Smt. Vijaya Kanika Tirupati Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Reassessment Notice by JAO Held Invalid as CBDT Faceless Scheme was Mandatory Hyderabad Tribunal considered the legal ground challenging validity of notice issued u/s 148. Assessee submitted that both order u/s 148A(d) dated 23.03.2023 & notice u/s 148 issued on same date were passed by JAO, even […]
