The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 50 does not convert a long-term capital asset to a short-term capital asset, then the rate of tax is applicable for the transfer of a long-term capital asset has to be in accordance with section 112. The deeming fiction of section 50 cannot be imported under section 112.
ITAT ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had no power to cancel registration under Section 12AB(4) for violations that occurred before April 2022, rendering the action void.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
ITAT ruled that invoking the Black Money Act for AY 2022–23 on income earned in FY 2015–16 was without jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that religious institutions can claim exemption under Section 10(23BBA) even without filing a return, citing CBDT Circular No. 4/2002. Case remanded for factual verification.
The ITAT remitted the case for fresh assessment after the assessee challenged unexplained cash additions, highlighting the need for proper documentation and adherence to natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal without granting reasonable opportunity violates natural justice and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
