The Tribunal held that notices and assessment orders in the name of a deceased person have no legal standing, confirming that reassessment requires a living assessee or representative.
The ITAT found the AO’s valuation incorrect, emphasizing that FMV must be determined on the date of transfer, leading to the restoration of the long-term capital loss for the Assessee.
The Tribunal directed AO to compute Section 14A disallowance only for investments generating exempt income, following Rule 8D. The decision reinforces the need for precise calculation of disallowances against exempt income.
ITAT quashed the reassessments, agreeing with prior ruling that combined approval under section 148B for multiple assessees violates legal requirements.
Tribunal emphasized reasonable opportunity of hearing and proper consideration of all evidence to resolve disputed reassessment under Section 147/144.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that obtaining sanction u/s 151 from PCIT instead of PCCIT for reopening beyond 3 years invalidates reassessment. Jurisdictional defect renders entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that reopening was invalid as the sanctioning authority recorded only a one-word approval. Key takeaway: Mechanical approval without reasoning vitiates jurisdiction under Section 147.
Reopening notice under Section 148 was held invalid as the AO ignored co-purchasers’ contributions and granted mechanical approval under Section 151 without application of mind. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment and associated additions null and void.
Tribunal emphasized that unilateral claims for commission and interest from CPRPL are insufficient to attract tax. Taxable income arises only when amounts are truly payable or received.
