$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
High Court held that reassessment notices/orders issued by the AO, rather than NFAC, are void due to jurisdictional defects. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness and statutory compliance.
Karnataka High Court sets aside reassessment order, ruling that the jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a notice and complete proceedings by bypassing the mandatory $\text{Faceless \text{ Assessment \text{ Scheme}}$ (NFAC).
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Holding the tolerance band as a remedial measure, the Tribunal applied it retrospectively to avoid hardship where stamp duty and actual sale values differ by less than 10%.
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that once income is estimated by rejecting books, no further addition can be made; ₹31.55 lakh added in liquor business case deleted.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹5.73 crore addition u/s 68, holding HUF proved loan identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, and repayment with interest.
ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of Air Con Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., deleting a ₹62,00,000 addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based solely on notings in an undated loose paper seized from a third party’s residence.
