The ITAT Ahmedabad invalidated the entire Section 143(1) intimation because the CPC made an adjustment regarding the leave encashment exemption without issuing the mandatory prior notice. The Tribunal held that the failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is a violation of audi alteram partem and renders the proceedings invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹10.64 crore addition for bogus purchases without obtaining Assessing Officer’s comments on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.
The ITAT Dehradun ruled that deposits in employees’ bank accounts, even when handled by the business, cannot be treated as the employer’s unexplained income under Section 69A. Following a precedent in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal confirmed these amounts belong to the employees.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable for non-payment of self-assessment tax even if later it was concluded that there was no tax payable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction because the necessary approval for the Section 148 notice, issued for A.Y. 2017-18 after three years, was obtained from the wrong authority. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the invalid approval under Section 151 vitiates the entire reassessment process.
The ITAT ruled the reassessment void because the AO failed to verify Insight data against the taxpayer’s filed return, leading to a factual mismatch and generic reasons for reopening. The decision confirms that mechanical satisfaction based on unverified information lacks the “live link” required for a valid Section 147 jurisdiction.
The case was remanded for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s claim that a significant Nazarana/fees paid to the Municipal Corporation should be included in the property’s cost. The ITAT directed the AO to verify all factual claims related to the cost of acquisition and the date of agreement for correct valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed additions totaling over ₹4.78 crore for unexplained partners’ capital and unsecured loans. The Tribunal ruled that the firm failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by relying on unaudited and unsubstantiated documents.
This case addresses the mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and income shown in the P&L account, which led to an addition for suppressed receipts. ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, relying on the SC ruling in TRF Ltd. to confirm that the company’s action of reversing the unrecovered billing as irrecoverable was a legitimate write-off, thus making the addition unjustified.
