The issue was whether an assessment could survive when statutory notices were issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal held such notices invalid and quashed the entire assessment.
The case involved share capital raised at a high premium based on unexecuted projects and circular fund routing. ITAT held that failure to prove creditworthiness and genuineness justified addition under Section 68.
ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation for passing the order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the same is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal considered whether a penalty can stand independently while the core addition is pending fresh adjudication. It ruled that penalty cannot precede final determination of income and must be deleted at this stage.
ITAT Chennai held that section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 cannot be invoked since Form 2 as contemplated under Income Declaration Scheme not served. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A made in assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether the AO formed an independent belief before reopening. Finding verbatim reasons and rubber-stamp approval, it set aside the reassessment and consequential penalty.
The Tribunal assessed compliance with revised reassessment provisions post Finance Act, 2021. It ruled that sanction by a lower authority after three years is non-est in law, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
CIT(A) remanded a completed scrutiny assessment even after the AO accepted additional evidence in remand. ITAT ruled this exceeded statutory powers and restored the case to CIT(A) for a merits-based decision.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
