The tribunal examined whether an appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance without considering the assessee’s explanation. It set aside the order and remanded the matter, directing the authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting a proper hearing.
The tribunal examined whether an appeal could be dismissed as time-barred without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It held that denial of hearing violated principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT ruled that jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative. Since the notice was issued to a deceased assessee, the reassessment order was declared illegal.
ITAT Chennai held that where unaccounted purchases are found and the corresponding sales are not doubted, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, and not the entire purchase value. Accordingly, addition towards unaccounted purchases duly restricted.
ITAT Delhi held that gift of a property to wife specially when she is a co-sharer in the property cannot be considered to be a colourable device and camouflage transaction to taint claim of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F erroneously disallowed.
The Tribunal held that capital gains from property transferred to a spouse without consideration must be taxed in the hands of the transferor under Section 64(1)(iv). Assessing it again in the transferee spouse’s hands was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The tribunal examined whether the tax authority correctly calculated allowable promotional expenses. It held that the disallowance based on an incorrect assumption about the number of gifts issued was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid when the assessee has fully disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny. The reassessment was quashed for lack of new material evidence.
