ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is invalid if approved by JCIT instead of the Pr.CIT for cases reopened after four years. Limitation rules under section 151 must be strictly followed.
The Tribunal set aside ex-parte assessments and appellate orders because the assessee was incarcerated during proceedings. All cases were remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment with directions to grant fair hearing. Takeaway: incarceration does not exempt authorities from observing natural justice.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
The appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as the assessee submitted all relevant documents to the AO. Written submissions and VAT summaries are not additional evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT’s sanction under section 151 was granted before the AO recorded reasons to reopen the assessment, violating mandatory procedural requirements. As the jurisdictional defect went to the root, the section 148 notice and entire section 147 reassessment were declared void ab initio.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the six-year limitation under Section 149 is invalid. Key takeaway: Tax authorities must strictly comply with statutory time limits.
The Tribunal noted conflicting positions regarding the evidence submitted by the assessee in support of agricultural income. Since the assessment appeared incomplete and lacked thorough verification, the case was returned to the AO. The ruling directs a fair reassessment and deletion of the addition if documentary proof is found satisfactory.
The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
