A postmaster who misappropriated public money was removed despite later repaying the amounts. The High Court’s order reinstating him was overturned for exceeding the scope of judicial review. The ruling highlights that integrity and adherence to rules are critical in public service.
The Tribunal held that reopening notices and assessment orders under section 148 issued in the PAN of a deceased person are invalid. The ruling reinforces that reassessment proceedings require notices to be addressed to the correct taxpayer to maintain legal jurisdiction.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted in audited books, they cannot be reclassified as unexplained cash credits. The addition of ₹41.74 lakh was struck down as it caused double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment under section 147 was invalid where the basis of information stemmed from a third-party search. It held that such cases must mandatorily proceed under section 153C. The key takeaway: search-linked data cannot justify a section 147 reopening.
ITAT Pune ruled that a primary credit cooperative society can claim deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from other cooperative banks, overturning Revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal held that substantial bank deposits without filing a return provided adequate basis to reopen under section 147. Notice-service objections failed due to section 292BB, and the quantum issue was remanded for verification. The ruling confirms that prima facie material is sufficient for reassessment.
ITAT allowed assessee’s appeal against Section 68 addition, stressing that AO must evaluate annual business activity, stock, and legitimate cash sales. This decision safeguards traders during exceptional periods like demonetization.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of advance tax without first seeking clarification from the assessee. Since the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no advance tax was due, the ITAT restored the matter for fresh consideration. Key takeaway: procedural conditions under Section 249(4)(b) must be applied with fairness and opportunity of hearing.
The Supreme Court applied the dominant-purpose principle and concluded that an established company buying specialized process-automation software cannot claim it was for personal or self-employment use. The transaction clearly supported larger commercial operations.
