Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2020-21, ruling the jurisdictional Assessing Officer acted beyond the scope of Section 151A (Faceless Assessment). The decision reinforces that reassessment notices must strictly follow the procedural mandate of the faceless regime, though the Revenue retains the liberty to revive the case if the Supreme Court validates the procedure.
Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed PMLA appeals filed after 5270 days, ruling that excessive delay and lack of vigilance by the appellants made the appeals legally untenable.
Appellate Tribunal dismissed FEMA proceedings after the ED could not provide authenticated HSBC Geneva bank statements. The ruling emphasizes that unverified evidence cannot support prosecution.
The tribunal ruled that commissions earned through LIC policies linked to a scheduled offence were rightly treated as proceeds of crime, justifying provisional attachment of property.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
CBDT’s 2025 Search & Seizure Manual guides tax officers on lawful, tech-driven investigations under Sections 132–132B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
