The tribunal annulled assessment proceedings, holding that the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical, non-application-of-mind manner without separate consideration for each year.
ITAT upheld reopening of assessment but allowed Section 54 exemption, ruling that construction delay due to YEIDA’s possession issues was beyond assessee’s control and thus eligible for relief.
The tribunal upheld deletion of ₹45 crore additions where losses from share transactions were disallowed as bogus. It held that all transactions were recorded, disclosed, and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal condoned an 86-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee’s unavoidable family issues as a reasonable cause. This confirms that genuine reasons can justify late appeals under tax law.
The Tribunal held that common area maintenance (CAM) charges are separate from rent and constitute contractual payments, making them liable for TDS under Section 194C. The AO is directed to recompute CAM charges accordingly.
Tribunal held that incremental cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 without concrete evidence. Addition of Rs. 40.32 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 issued without prior approval of the specified authority under Section 151(ii) is invalid. The reassessment order for AY 2017-18 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be restricted solely due to differences between reported turnover and Form 26AS if the assessee has correctly offered the income for tax. The appeal was allowed, directing the AO to grant full TDS credit.
Tribunal held that assessment proceedings were invalid as notices were sent to a non-functional email ID, denying assessee a fair hearing. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer made a ₹50 lakh addition solely on estimation without any supporting material, and deleted the addition as no evidence linked the assessee to alleged bogus share transactions.
