Since the mandatory notice was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, the assessment was quashed as void ab initio. A valid notice by the correct officer within limitation is indispensable.
Since the reassessment notice was barred by limitation, the tribunal did not examine capital gains issues on merits. The ruling confirms that jurisdictional defects override substantive tax disputes.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment beyond four years is barred when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Mere suspicion of escaped income is insufficient to override the statutory limitation.
ITAT held that CPC cannot deny charitable exemption under section 11 through section 143(1) adjustment without issuing prior intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after due opportunity.
The ITAT held that unsupported DCF valuation could not justify high share premium. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was restored after setting aside the appellate relief.
The Tribunal held that a short delay caused by hospitalisation must be condoned when supported by evidence. Procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive justice.
The ITAT condoned a 66-day delay after accepting that the trust was unfamiliar with the income-tax e-filing system. The matter was restored for fresh consideration with costs imposed.
The ITAT held that reopening an assessment after four years without any new tangible material is invalid. A reassessment based merely on re-examining earlier facts was struck down as a change of opinion.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
