Tribunal ruled that a single approval letter covering several assessment years violated statutory requirements. Key takeaway: Section 153D requires separate, reasoned approvals for each year.
Rakesh Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) When the Reason Falls, the Case Falls: Rs. 3.14 Cr Trigger Proves False — ITAT Delhi Quashes Whole 147 The reassessment for AY 2012–13 was triggered solely on the allegation that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹3,14,16,000 from M/s Shreyas International. However, at the time of completing […]
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the AO relied on outdated investigation data without linking it to the assessee’s transactions. Since the information pertained to a period before the assessee even acquired the shares, the reopening lacked jurisdictional foundation. As a result, the entire addition for alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that transaction of sale of shares is not business income since assessee was never involved in the business affairs of the company. Further, consideration is treated as capital gain inspite of non-compete fee since no specific amount assigned towards non-compete fee in share purchase agreement.
ITAT set aside CIT(E) orders denying 12AB registration, holding that section 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked at registration stage; charitable intent and activities must be examined independently.
The ITAT held that rejection of Section 80G registration without specific reasons is unsustainable and directed a fresh, reasoned consideration by the CIT(E).
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed PCIT’s revisionary orders, holding that Section 263 powers cannot be used when the AO has made thorough enquiries. Revision requires demonstrable error prejudicial to revenue, not mere differences of opinion.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the PCIT himself does not conduct the verification he insists was missing. It reaffirms that revision requires demonstrated lack of inquiry, not assumptions.
The ITAT held that without a condonation petition, a 300-day delay cannot be excused. The ruling underscores that delay must be justified before merits—including Section 80P—can be considered.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal after noting that the case was already remanded under section 251(1)(a). The once a matter is reopened before the AO, the assessee may abandon the pending appeal.
