The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that it was unclear whether the ₹20 lakh receipt was a loan or a property advance and remanded the matter for fresh examination. The ruling underscores that section 68 additions depend on establishing the true character of the receipt through contemporaneous evidence.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment could stand when based on information relating to another individual. It held that reopening was invalid due to absence of any tangible material against the assessee.
The dispute concerned denial of TDS credit solely due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive and factual deduction of tax overrides system mismatch.
Despite Form 10E being duly filed online, the claim under section 89(1) was rejected on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that such rigidity defeats justice and directed the AO to examine the claim afresh.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
