This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
Invalid 143(2) notice format kills assessment. Kolkata ITAT quashes s.143(3) assessment (Pankhuri Mishra Vs ITO) as notice didn’t specify scrutiny type (limited/complete) per CBDT mandate.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a RS.4 crore addition made under Section 68 against Livros Publishing Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the share application money received through banking channels from a listed NBFC.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that losses of Rs.18.6 crore incurred by Fiem Industries Ltd. on target-redemption forward contracts to hedge export receivables were genuine business losses, not speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reassessment proceedings against Huawei International, a Singapore resident, for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s attempt to investigate offshore software receipts, based merely.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a consultancy company with zero turnover could deduct necessary expenses, allowing the full Rs.8.66 lakh security charge as an establishment cost.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the CIT(A)’s order deleting a Rs.16.10 Cr unsecured loan addition against Nitin Garg, remanding the issue to the AO. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred by not requesting a remand report to verify the lender’s creditworthiness and the source of funds, despite the assessee’s non-compliance during assessment.
The ITAT Delhi ruled in DCIT Vs Jai Jai Ram Singh Infrastructure that shuttering material constitutes a homogenous ‘plant’ and not a ‘purely temporary erection.
