The ITAT Delhi held that the final assessment order was time-barred as it was passed beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 144C(13). The Tribunal ruled that internal departmental communications could not extend the statutory limitation and quashed the assessment.
The Delhi High Court held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13). It upheld the ITAT’s decision and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to question the petitioner in Kolkata instead of Delhi. The Court held that the alleged offence and the cause of action originated in West Bengal, making questioning in Kolkata appropriate.
The High Court held that no addition under Section 68 could be sustained as the Revenue failed to produce material connecting the assessee with the cash deposited in another company’s bank account.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s order after finding that the Revenue failed to establish any perversity in the concurrent factual findings regarding share capital, unsecured loans and earnest money.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge after the High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT on identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were not perverse.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s finding that the assessee had established the identity of creditors and the genuineness of loan transactions through banking channels. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of information arising from a search in the case of a third party fell within the exceptions to Section 148A. It ruled that issuance of a notice under Section 148A was without authority of law and could not confer jurisdiction. The reassessment was accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D could not be levied because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating such proceedings in the assessment order. The penalty was cancelled following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, both pnalties were cancelled.
