The issue was whether the final order was passed within the statutory timeline after DRP directions. The Tribunal held that delay beyond one month under section 144C(13) renders the order void.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment issued beyond three years requires approval from the PCCIT and not the PCIT. Since sanction was obtained from an incompetent authority, the entire reassessment was held void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where receipts were linked to declared sales and no evidence of cash back was shown. Acceptance of sales negates Section 68 in the absence of proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a ₹2.28 crore unexplained property investment case to the AO, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to provide supporting documents, while imposing a ₹5,000 cost for non-compliance.
ITAT Pune ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from ICICI and HDFC banks retains its character as business income and qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a).
ITAT Delhi overturned a ₹2.61 crore addition under sections 144/147, noting notices were sent to the wrong address and the illiterate assessee was deprived of proper hearing.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a single approval for seven assessment years under Section 153D, issued without application of mind, is invalid, quashing the related assessment orders. The case underscores the need for careful, year-specific scrutiny.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 must follow the faceless mechanism prescribed by the CBDT Scheme, 2022. Issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the proceedings.
