The issue was whether reopening is valid when the information relied upon is not shared. The Tribunal held that failure to supply such material violates natural justice and vitiates reassessment.
The issue was whether an extraordinary delay caused by non-communication of intimation and a CPC error could be condoned. ITAT held the delay was unintentional, imposed costs, and remanded the case for adjudication on merits.
The issue was whether commission income could be estimated without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal ruled that estimation without invoking section 145(3) and section 144 is impermissible.
The Revenue argued that routing through banking channels was insufficient. The Tribunal rejected this contention, holding that complete documentary evidence satisfied all requirements of Section 68.
The ruling reiterates that reassessment cannot be sustained where documentary evidence shows no loan transaction. Incorrect third-party information cannot justify reopening.
The case dealt with a TDS return processed in March 2015 where late fee was levied. The Tribunal held such levy to be without jurisdiction under the law then in force.
The issue was whether CPC could disallow Section 80P deduction while processing the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held that CPC lacked such power for AY 2019-20 as the enabling amendment came later.
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty after treating disclosed capital gains as business income. The Tribunal ruled that classification disputes, without suppression of facts, cannot justify penalty.
The issue was whether cash and cheque payments could be taxed as unexplained investment in AY 2013–14. The Tribunal held that the major payments pertained to FY 2010–11 and could not be assessed in a later year.
The issue was whether reassessment based on identical, template reasons was valid. The Tribunal held that reopening without independent application of mind amounts to borrowed satisfaction and is invalid in law.
