The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issues during scrutiny. Mere disagreement with the assessment cannot justify revision.
Delhi High Court held reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated merely on an internal audit objection. Absence of new tangible material made reopening invalid.
The High Court held that reassessment cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the original Section 148A notice. Since no income had escaped assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The issue was whether ITAT could reject appeals after an administrative transfer. The High Court ruled such dismissals are invalid and appeals must be heard on merits.
The tribunal held that a partner’s capital account increase arising from a firm’s loan write-back cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that such credits are only accounting consequences, not unexplained income of the partner.
ITAT held that execution of a registered joint development agreement amounts to transfer of land. Capital gains timing must be determined from that date, not a later year chosen by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening after four years is invalid without alleging failure to disclose material facts. The reassessment was barred by the proviso to section 147.
