It was held that a proposed object-clause amendment cannot justify outright rejection of 80G renewal. What matters is actual application of funds, not a removable clause in the trust deed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
The ITAT ruled that rectification proceedings cannot substitute for an appellate remedy against an addition under section 69A. Absence of a mistake apparent from the record justified dismissal.
Validity of reopening and quantum of addition for alleged bogus purchases. Reopening upheld; addition restricted to 5% profit element. Key takeaway: Where sales and quantities are accepted, only embedded profits can be added.
The tribunal held that assessment under section 153C cannot be initiated without seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee. Third-party statements and assumptions, without incriminating evidence, were held insufficient to confer jurisdiction
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The ruling clarifies that unsecured loans taken and repaid during the same year through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits. Proper documentation and repayment negate allegations of bogus loans
Holding in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal clarified that high-rate taxation under section 115BBE requires clear proof of bogus receipts. Suspicion based on third-party searches is insufficient.
The Tribunal held that additions in a search assessment cannot survive without incriminating material. Mere repetition of an annulled earlier assessment was found legally unsustainable.
