The ITAT held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers when the same issue is already pending before the appellate authority. The case involved share transaction additions treated as penny stock.
ITAT held that reassessment notice issued after three years without PCCIT approval violates Section 151(ii). The approval taken from PCIT was found insufficient. The ruling confirms that proper authority approval is mandatory for valid reassessment.
ITAT upheld deletion of penalty as the exemption issue was pending before the High Court. The assessee had filed an undertaking under Section 158A. The ruling highlights that penalty cannot be sustained when the core issue is yet to be finally adjudicated.
ITAT remanded the case as authorities failed to determine whether the assessee was a society, trust, or other entity. The eligibility for deduction was not properly examined. The ruling highlights the need for factual verification before denying tax benefits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization. Mere disclosure in books was insufficient without proof of genuineness and credibility.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not deduct tax due to binding interim directions of the High Court. As a result, it could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201.
The Tribunal rejected reopening based on common reasons for multiple years without year-specific justification. The absence of relevant material for AY 2010–11 led to quashing of reassessment. The ruling stresses precision in reopening proceedings.
The issue was whether sale of agricultural land attracts capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that land situated beyond prescribed municipal limits is not a capital asset. The key takeaway is that location plays a decisive role in taxability.
The issue was whether interest on FDRs qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal held that such income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. The key takeaway is that interest from cooperative institutions can qualify for exemption.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note can cover multiple assessment years under Section 153C. The Tribunal held that absence of year-wise satisfaction renders the proceedings invalid. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction requires specific satisfaction for each year.
