The Tribunal examined whether a third-party seized document could be ignored as a dumb document. It held that once cheque entries in the same document matched recorded transactions, related cash entries could not be disbelieved and addition under section 69C was justified.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty proceedings are consequential to assessment. When the assessment issue is pending before the High Court, penalty cannot be enforced.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that reassessment cannot be based on re-appreciation of facts already scrutinized earlier. Without failure of disclosure, invoking Section 147 beyond four years was invalid.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
The Tribunal examined whether a branch office treated as a permanent establishment can deduct head-office cost reimbursements. ITAT held that full cost deduction is mandatory so that only profits attributable to the PE are taxed under Article 7.
Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) The ITAT Ranchi quashed the reassessment for AY 2013–14, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect. The assessee’s original assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny of share application money and share premium, including issuance of […]
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition has been deleted. Once the foundation fails, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must also fall.
The Tribunal ruled that a draft assessment order is the statutory trigger for DRP proceedings. Absence of a valid draft order against an existing entity vitiates the entire assessment.
