The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that a cess deduction claim based on favourable jurisprudence cannot trigger penalty. Compliance with Section 155(18), including timely Form 69 filing, protected the assessee from under-reporting allegations.
Given the assessee’s admission of incorrect turnover and failure to get accounts audited, the Tribunal found income estimation justified. However, finding that the AO’s 4% rate was slightly high and unsupported by specific defects, it revised the rate to 3.5%. Key takeaway: estimation must be justified and proportionate to facts on record.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
The Tribunal ruled that duty drawback income recognized on cash receipt basis cannot be taxed on accrual, as consistent accounting practice caused no revenue loss.
Difference between ready reckoner and stamp duty value was wrongly treated as misreported income. Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication, allowing assessee to present sale deeds, purchase deed, and bank statements.
This case examines whether the PCIT could revise an assessment under section 263 when the AO allowed interest income deduction under section 80P. The ITAT ruled that the AO’s order was a plausible view, and both conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
The Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 issued beyond the surviving period under TOLA are invalid, leading to quashing of assessment orders. Time-bar limits override procedural provisions.
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
