The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 9A cannot automatically result in denial of exemption under Section 11. The issue was sent back for reconsideration after examining the condonation application before the Commissioner.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The sanction was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed after DRP directions is still subject to revision under Section 263. It held that there is no statutory bar preventing the Principal Commissioner from revising such orders.
The case addressed whether tax authorities can issue notices for multiple years based on one satisfaction note. The tribunal ruled that each assessment year requires an independent satisfaction linking seized material.
The Tribunal held that when an adjustment made in the CPC intimation is subsequently deleted in appeal, the scrutiny assessment relying on that adjustment cannot continue. The income was therefore restored to the amount originally declared by the assessee.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
