The NFAC remitted a statutory authority’s taxability under Section 2(15) to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee’s exemption claims under Sections 11 and 12 were disputed. The ruling ensures reassessment aligns with Supreme Court guidelines and provides a fair hearing.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹38 lakh additions under Sections 68 and 69A, accepting that agricultural income was misreported due to a clerical error and demonetization cash was properly explained.
A GST demand and recovery order was invalidated as the issuing officer acted beyond jurisdiction. The matter is remitted to a new officer for reconsideration. This ensures fair process and proper application of the law.
The Tribunal ruled that once the assessee responds to a 148A(b) notice, the AO must complete the 148A(d)–148 cycle within the remaining time. In this case, the notice overshot the surviving limitation period, making reassessment legally defective. Consequently, all additions related to alleged accommodation entries and loans were quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if the AO of the searched person fails to record a mandatory satisfaction note, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance.
Tribunal quashed reopening under Section 147 where AO’s presumption of non-filing contradicted the documented return, citing Deepak Wadhwa precedent.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
