Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, emphasizing that the Assessee deserved a proper opportunity to argue their case on merits despite missing the final notices.1 The matter was sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision, with the Assessee directed to cooperate fully.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
The ITAT Delhi set aside an addition of Rs.44.50 lakh, alleged as commission income on fund routing transactions, due to the CIT(A)’s failure to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh, de novo assessment to verify documents and provide reasoned findings, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
ITAT Delhi held that cash seized during search operations can be adjusted against self-assessment tax. The order distinguishes between advance tax and self-assessment tax, directing deletion of demand raised by CPC.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated reassessment proceedings because the Section 148 notice was issued two days prior to obtaining the mandatory statutory sanction under Section 151 from the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal held that obtaining the requisite approval is a precondition for valid reopening, and issuing the notice before approval renders the entire action void ab initio.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an addition made under Section 69, ruling that in cases of alleged “on-money” payments found during a search, only the embedded profit component is taxable. Following the Gujarat High Court precedent, the Tribunal restricted the unexplained investment addition of Rs.1.25 lakh to just 30% (Rs.37,500).
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
