Tribunal emphasized reasonable opportunity of hearing and proper consideration of all evidence to resolve disputed reassessment under Section 147/144.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid under the faceless reassessment regime. It ruled that only the Faceless AO could issue such notices, vitiating the entire reassessment.
ITAT Delhi held that obtaining sanction u/s 151 from PCIT instead of PCCIT for reopening beyond 3 years invalidates reassessment. Jurisdictional defect renders entire proceedings void.
ITAT Pune allowed a retired PSU bank employee to claim leave encashment exemption of Rs. 6,97,100 under Section 10(10AA) after limit was revised from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 25,00,000. The ruling confirms that updated notifications can affect eligible deductions.
The Tribunal held that MAT relief under section 115JB cannot continue once a company’s net worth becomes positive, as the scheme required only consideration—not automatic grant—of exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
Tribunal held that civil, plumbing and electrical charges paid to builder formed part of the acquisition cost and allowed claim. It held that embedded fixtures qualify for deduction, while travel expenses unrelated to transfer do not.
The Tribunal held that amounts paid directly to a confirming party did not accrue to the seller and could not be treated as capital gains. The Section 263 revision was invalidated because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
