ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
Tax treatment of a foreign exchange fluctuation depended entirely on the nature of the underlying asset or liability. Gains or losses on capital items (like a long-term investment or loan) were not typically recognized for tax purposes until the asset was actually sold or the loan was repaid.
Provision for customer loyalty points, computed on a scientific and consistent basis, constituted a present and ascertained liability deductible under Section 37(1). Disallowance u/s 14A was deleted since no exempt income was earned during the year.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The core issue was whether the Revenue could make a Section 68 addition when the same share investors and identical facts were previously validated by the ITAT in earlier years. The Delhi ITAT upheld the principle of judicial consistency, confirming the deletion of the full addition and concluding that without new evidence, the genuineness of the share application money stands proven.
ITAT Kolkata held that mere non-filing of income tax returns by suppliers or non-response to notices cannot make an assessee’s expenses bogus. Proper verification of invoices, ledgers, payments, and work done is mandatory before disallowing purchases or subcontract expenses.
The ITAT remanded the assessment for an individuals commission income, ruling that the Assessing Officer (AO) must first verify if the income was already offered to tax by the company of which the assessee was a Director. The key takeaway is the prohibition of double taxation on the same income, directing the AO to delete the addition if the company has paid the tax.
