Smt. Pavithra Sugichandran Vs Office of the DCIT (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court considered six writ petitions challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner’s husband, a director of Gateway Office Parks Limited (GOPL), faced allegations of siphoning company funds, leading to a search and seizure operation. Materials allegedly […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions solely on the ground of absence of incriminating material without examining the evidence on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee’s claims.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision restricting the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of sustaining a 100% disallowance. It held that the appellate authorities rightly taxed only the income component embedded in the disputed transactions.
The Bombay High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the assessments were not completed within the statutory period. It quashed the notices issued for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20.
The Calcutta High Court held that an assessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed, making examination of the additions unnecessary.
