The ₹8.49 lakh credited for household expenditure from husband was deleted as non-taxable. The unexplained ₹17.80 lakh in the capital account is sent back to the AO for proper verification and opportunity to furnish evidence.
Since the assessee did not receive notices sent to a wrong email, non-compliance findings were unsustainable. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to examine evidence and pass a speaking order after granting a proper hearing
The Tribunal held that notices sent to an incorrect email constituted a valid reason for delay, restored the matter to the AO, and emphasized the need for fair opportunity. Key takeaway: technical lapses in service cannot defeat substantive justice.
Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid under the faceless reassessment regime. It ruled that only the Faceless AO could issue such notices, vitiating the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal held that deposits in the assessee’s bank account represented genuine receivables from a previously acknowledged liquor business. Since the source was documented and undisputed, the Sec.69A addition of Rs.12.21 lakhs was deleted.
The Tribunal held that severance pay received on cessation of employment is taxable as “profits in lieu of salary” under Sec.17(3)(iii). Voluntariness or nomenclature of the payment is irrelevant post-2002 statutory amendment.
The Tribunal held that once the Final Assessment Order under Section 147/144C(3) is passed, the DRP has no jurisdiction to consider belated objections. Consequently, appeals against DRP directions in such cases are not maintainable.
Aveva Solutions India LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) DRP Route Cannot Extend Limitation: Assessment Beyond Section 153 Limit Struck Down by ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal examined the core legal issue of limitation for passing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in a Transfer Pricing case. Assessee contended that once the assessment year is 2021-22, the statutory time […]
The Tribunal found that sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner when reopening is beyond the three-year period prescribed by the amended law. Because the approval was taken from the Pr. CIT, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction and was invalidated.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
