The Tribunal held that after the High Court invalidated section 153C proceedings, all subsequent tax adjustments including those involving ₹6.68 crore are unsustainable. Judicial finality bars further action.
The Tribunal observed that Form 10-IE was available on record before return processing and should have been considered. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication under section 115BAC.
The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Indore held that trust has passed resolution dealing with dissolution and utilization of assets in event of dissolution. Accordingly, the said resolution must be accepted by CIT(E) for granting final approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Thus, matter remanded to the file of CIT(E).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that JDA-related income issues had already attained finality. Any attempt to reassess the same income in an earlier year would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that additions made without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice violate CBDT instructions and natural justice. Key takeaway: Procedural compliance is essential for valid assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that advisory and consultancy services could not be taxed as Fees for Included Services because no technical knowledge was transferred to clients.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that it was unclear whether the ₹20 lakh receipt was a loan or a property advance and remanded the matter for fresh examination. The ruling underscores that section 68 additions depend on establishing the true character of the receipt through contemporaneous evidence.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
