The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal. As the reopening was barred by limitation, the reassessment order was quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction since revisionary proceedings under section 263 on the same issue was already dropped.
The Tribunal held that mere acceptance of demonetized currency during the demonetization period cannot justify addition under Section 68 when identity, genuineness, and source are established. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that rejection of 80G approval solely on religious objects was insufficient without examining whether religious expenditure exceeded 5% of total income. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal held that once loan transactions are routed through banking channels and identity and genuineness are established, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The unsecured loan addition of Rs. 60 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that once retail liquor sales were accepted and income estimated, cash deposits used for liquor purchases could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. The addition was deleted due to recorded business transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed three appeals for statistical purposes by setting aside CIT(A) orders and directing fresh adjudication, subject to deposit of ₹5,000 per case in the PM National Relief Fund.
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order because the appeal was dismissed on limitation without properly examining delay condonation grounds. It held that non-speaking orders passed without adequate hearing violate principles of natural justice and require fresh adjudication.
