The Tribunal ruled that additions based solely on third-party statements are invalid when cross-examination is denied. Reliance on investigation reports without independent inquiry violates principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether Section 263 could be invoked despite adequate verification by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible, evidence-based view cannot be revised merely due to a differing opinion.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal clarified that revisionary jurisdiction presupposes a valid assessment order. Where Section 153C itself is time-barred, Section 263 has no application.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid since the section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16, making it barred by limitation under settled Supreme Court law.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a search assessment completed under Section 153C with proper approval under Section 153D. Unless such approval is shown to be erroneous, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
The dispute centered on jurisdiction to assess under Section 153A. The Tribunal clarified that Kabul Chawla principles do not bar additions in abated assessments and ordered a de novo assessment.
The approving authority merely stated that records were perused without demonstrating scrutiny. The Tribunal held that mechanical sanction defeats the statutory purpose and nullifies the assessment.
The case examined a large disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for purchases from a group concern. The Tribunal ruled that without market comparables or proof of inflated pricing, related-party payments cannot be treated as excessive.
Revenue issued 153C notices for years far preceding the satisfaction date. Following binding judicial precedent, the tribunal ruled that such assessments were beyond the ten-year statutory window and could not survive.
