The Tribunal held that validity of reopening under Section 148 must be tested on the basis of material available when reassessment proceedings are initiated. Subsequent reduction in additions does not invalidate jurisdiction already assumed.
Hyderabad ITAT held that a notice issued under Section 148 after six years from the end of AY 2015-16 was invalid. The Tribunal ruled that the amended 10-year reopening provision cannot revive already time-barred cases.
The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
ITAT Hyderabad held that rural agricultural land situated beyond 8 kilometres from municipal limits cannot be taxed as a capital asset merely because the purchaser later used it for commercial plotting. The Tribunal ruled that future use by the buyer does not alter the land’s character in the seller’s hands.
The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
Tribunal ruled that WhatsApp messages and digital records without corroborative evidence or proper certification could not sustain additions under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form No. 10DA was filed late due to technical glitches on the income tax portal. The Tribunal noted that the form was available with CPC before processing the return.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized documents. The Tribunal ruled that absence of corroborative evidence, cash trail, or signed records makes such additions legally unsustainable.
