The Tribunal held that once the Final Assessment Order under Section 147/144C(3) is passed, the DRP has no jurisdiction to consider belated objections. Consequently, appeals against DRP directions in such cases are not maintainable.
Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Unexplained Cash Credits & Bogus Share Dealings — Kolkata ITAT Upholds 68 Additions in Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt Ltd Vs ITO; ITAT Upholds Section 68 Additions After Assessee Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness; Additions Upheld as Assessee Fails to Establish Genuineness of Share Transactions; ITAT Confirms Section […]
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be based on vague or unverified information; specific transactions must be identified to justify additions.
Aveva Solutions India LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) DRP Route Cannot Extend Limitation: Assessment Beyond Section 153 Limit Struck Down by ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal examined the core legal issue of limitation for passing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in a Transfer Pricing case. Assessee contended that once the assessment year is 2021-22, the statutory time […]
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is taxable under ‘Income from Other Sources’ per Sections 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1). The case clarifies post-amendment tax treatment of such interest.
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
The Tribunal found that sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner when reopening is beyond the three-year period prescribed by the amended law. Because the approval was taken from the Pr. CIT, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction and was invalidated.
The Tribunal found no proof that the trust spent funds on a specific community. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of its 12AB and 80G applications.
