The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
The ITAT held that revision is invalid when invoked merely to re-examine an issue already scrutinised by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that approval by an incompetent authority under Section 151(ii) invalidates a reassessment issued after three years. The notice and consequential order were declared void for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT ruled that deductions under section 80P cannot be disallowed at the CPC stage for returns filed after the due date prior to Finance Act 2021. The matter was remanded for proper verification by the AO.
ITAT ruled that enhancement of income under section 251 without giving the assessee a proper hearing is invalid. The appeals were remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that Section 50C proviso is retrospective, allowing stamp duty value as on the agreement date where consideration was fixed earlier, significantly reducing LTCG exposure.
The tribunal held that mere absence of substantial activities since inception is not conclusive where charitable objects are genuine. A fresh opportunity must be granted to substantiate activities with evidence.
The tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid when alleged escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakh. Notices issued contrary to section 149 after the 2021 amendments were quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE on survey-related excess stock was legally unsustainable for AY 2015-16. The addition was therefore liable to be taxed at normal rates.
