The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that without any incriminating material belonging to the assessee found during search, proceedings under Section 153C are invalid. Addition based solely on third-party statements was set aside.
The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter was remanded for verification to avoid wrongful taxation in the current assessment year.
ITAT ruled that a 76/23 split in chats reflected proposed refurbishment costs, not undisclosed cash consideration. In absence of corroborative material, addition under Sections 69 and 115BBE was held unsustainable.
Holding that the Assessing Officer recorded a mechanical satisfaction note without concrete incriminating evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeals and confirmed invalid jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of Form 10CCB along with return is a curable defect. A genuine start-up cannot be denied deduction under Section 80-IAC merely on procedural grounds.
ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remaining unexplained amount was reduced on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing addition made in respect of Letter of Comfort rightly deleted since Letter of Comfort didn’t constitute an International Transaction. Accordingly, order passed by CIT(A) upheld to that extent.
