The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated solely on a Revenue audit objection, without fresh tangible material, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years on the same facts examined earlier amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Where income admitted in section 153C proceedings is accepted in assessment, penalty still requires strict compliance with section 270A. Absence of a specific misreporting charge defeats penalty levy.
The ITAT Chennai held a reassessment notice under section 148 invalid as it was issued after the statutory limitation expired, emphasizing strict compliance with time limits.
The Tribunal held that mere possession of cash during seizure does not establish ownership for section 69A. Where the source is explained and ownership lies elsewhere, addition in the carrier’s hands is unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 70 of the Income Tax Act allows first setting off the short term capital loss against the non STT gains taxable at thirty percent, and then applying the balance against the STT gains taxable at fifteen percent. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when seized search material exists. The correct and exclusive route is section 153C, making the reopening jurisdictionally invalid.
The Tribunal held that delays caused by internal approvals from senior officials cannot justify late filing. Lack of due diligence by officials led to outright dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that taxing entire bank cash deposits under section 69A without examining business explanations is unsustainable. The reassessment was restored for de-novo adjudication with conditions.
The Tribunal noted that Form 26AS discrepancies were caused by contracts and TDS continuing in the proprietor’s PAN after business conversion. Since reconciliation was not properly examined, the issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that invoking Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee’s own disallowance violates section 14A(2). Mechanical application of Rule 8D renders the disallowance legally unsustainable.
