The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid because the sanction was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii). The Court quashed both the Section 148A(d) order and the Section 148 notice.
The NCLT held that an investment made under a film production and revenue-sharing agreement did not constitute an Operational Debt. As no goods or services were provided, the Section 9 IBC petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenues appeal after holding that the CIT(A) and ITAT had thoroughly examined the lenders’ creditworthiness. It found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
The NCLAT held that although the claim arose from the supply of goods and qualified as an operational debt, genuine disputes existed before the demand notice. As a result, insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC were held to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by treating capital gains as business income without obtaining mandatory approval for complete scrutiny. The appeal was partly allowed on this technical ground, and the merits were not examined.
The ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
The ITAT held that a scrutiny assessment cannot survive where the jurisdictional Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that the defect rendered the entire assessment void ab initio despite transfer of the case.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed through e-Proceedings must be digitally signed as required by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018. Since the order was manually signed without any prescribed exception, it was quashed.
The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, suppression, or wilful intent. The Court set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalty for lack of statutory compliance.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory timeline prescribed under Section 144C(13) after receipt of the DRP’s directions. It declared the assessment void ab initio and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
