The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to deposit capital gains in CGAS does not bar Section 54 relief when the assessee invests in a new house within the prescribed period. The key takeaway is that substantive compliance overrides procedural lapses.
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
The ITAT held that revision is invalid when invoked merely to re-examine an issue already scrutinised by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that approval by an incompetent authority under Section 151(ii) invalidates a reassessment issued after three years. The notice and consequential order were declared void for lack of jurisdiction.
