ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer rather than through the mandatory faceless system. The assessment order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notice under Section 148 is issued in the name of a company that had already converted into an LLP. The Tribunal ruled that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void in law.
The Tribunal ruled that unverified KOT data and handwritten loose sheets are insufficient to establish unaccounted sales. Additions based on assumptions and unsupported survey statements were deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that marketing and advertisement expenses incurred to promote products on an online retail platform are revenue in nature since they relate to expansion of an existing business.
The Tribunal ruled that both conditions for Section 263 revision must exist simultaneously. Since no exempt income was earned, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee is needs to establish the expenditure which is unreasonably high. Thus, additional evidence filed for expense pertaining to ‘shortage and quality cuts’ needs complete verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables rightly deleted since TNMM has been applied and working capital adjustment has been given while benchmarking the main international transaction.
The Tribunal held that immunity under Section 270AA cannot be denied due to technical issues in filing Form 68. The penalty under Section 270A was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Tribunal ruled that collection of fees by an educational trust does not negate its charitable character. Where donations and fees are separately accounted, denial of 80G approval is unjustified.
