The Lucknow ITAT held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the reasons recorded contain incorrect facts and lack proper application of mind. The reassessment order was quashed as the recorded reasons were found arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. A fresh adjudication on merits was directed.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only Rs. 2,03,816, below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold. The reassessment and consequential additions were quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued beyond three years where the alleged escaped income is less than ₹50 lakh. The reassessment proceedings were therefore declared invalid and quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO under the unamended Section 55A. Since the reference itself was invalid, the addition based on the DVOs valuation could not survive.
