AO was bound to follow the CBDT circular 19/2019 (F. NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II], DATED 14-82019 and the omission/dereliction was anathema to the basic feature of our Constitution “Rule of Law”, so his impugned action of passing the assessment order without quoting the DIN was held to be arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act is in violation of mandatory provisions of section 153D since mechanical approval is granted without application of mind. Accordingly, order is set aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has remanded an appeal by Sumatinath Builders back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding the initial ex-parte order was issued without proper notice to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi quashes ₹8.11 Cr addition, ruling reassessment void due to mechanical approval by JCIT. AO’s lack of independent mind also cited. Safeguards are not rituals.
ITAT directs fresh transfer pricing analysis for UST Global, ruling that tax authorities must apply an upper turnover filter when using a lower one.
ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under Section 153A due to “mechanical” Section 153D approval by the Additional CIT. The tribunal emphasized that this approval is a mandatory safeguard, not a mere formality, and its lack of application of mind renders assessments void.
Agra ITAT directs the AO to tax a private family trust at normal rates, not the MMR, after finding the trust’s incorrect tax form was a bona fide error.
Delhi ITAT reduces a Rs.3.50 Cr bogus creditor addition to Rs.45 lakh, ruling that purchases were genuine despite suspicious cash payments to unverified parties.
Delhi ITAT sets aside a reassessment order against Jaivir, ruling that the AO’s use of a repealed section (147(a)) shows a lack of application of mind, rendering the notice
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that PCIT’s Section 263 revision orders against Ambience Developers were invalid. The Tribunal found the AO’s assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue, citing consistency and proper inquiry.
