ITAT allows S. 80-IA deduction, ruling that the Form 10CCB filing delay is a procedural lapse that can’t deny a substantive claim, maintaining the judicial view post-Finance Act 2020.
The Supreme Court ruled that a deed mortgaging property to secure one’s own performance is a Mortgage Deed, even if the title suggests a security bond, affirming deficit stamp duty demands. This provides critical legal clarity that when the principal debtor is the party providing the security, Article 40 of the Indian Stamp Act is the governing provision.
ITAT Hyderabad upholds remand for ex-parte reassessment, allowing the assessee to challenge the Section 148 notice validity based on the mandatory faceless procedure violation in fresh proceedings.
ITAT Hyderabad sustains unexplained investment based on a builder’s seized document with matching sale details but deletes gift addition, citing the Revenue’s failure to disprove the donor’s capacity.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes Rs.11.27 lakh addition for penny stock investment, ruling the Revenue failed to prove the investment originated from the assessee’s own unexplained funds under Section 69B.
ITAT Pune sets aside NFAC’s ex-parte order, mandating fresh adjudication on S. 44AD applicability to commission income, citing violation of natural justice and lack of proper notice.
ITAT Hyderabad in Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT quashes a reassessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The order holds that notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the Faceless AO (FAO) after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme 2022 are void ab initio.
Visakhapatnam ITAT dismisses Revenue appeals, quashing protective additions on cotton mills. Protective assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 invalid as substantive addition was in A.Y. 2017-18.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that reassessment notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after April 1, 2022, are invalid and void ab initio. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, quashing the entire reassessment for lack of proper authority.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
