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 […]
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
The ITAT ruled that the assessee’s exemption claim must be reassessed following a retrospective CBDT notification increasing the non-government leave encashment limit to ₹25 lakh. Earlier appellate decisions restricting exemption were set aside. Takeaway: retrospective amendments can reopen exemption eligibility in pending cases.
The apex court removed the cost imposed to the State Legal Services Authority after parties settled a cheque dishonour dispute. The ruling confirms that prior Article 142-based cost schemes cannot mandate payment in every case. Takeaway: each settlement must be evaluated on its own merits, not by automatic precedent.
The case examines whether bank-account freezing orders can stand without meeting mandatory requirements under Section 20 before invoking Section 8. The Court held that failure to follow the statutory scheme vitiated the confirmation orders. The key takeaway is that procedural lapses render downstream PMLA actions legally unsustainable.
