The ITAT ruled that a reassessment notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is void, quashing a demand of ₹1.01 crore and invalidating the assessment.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
The ITAT ruled that payments for typing and DTP services fall under Section 194C, not 194J, and correctly attract 2% TDS. As a result, the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reopening of an income-tax assessment under section 148, holding that no new tangible material was found. Interest income from co-operative banks and other receipts had already been considered in the original assessment.
Revenue’s claim of short-term gains was rejected; ITAT held that shares received as a gift inherit the donor’s acquisition date and holding period, validating LTCG and section 54F exemption.
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.
