ITAT Ahmedabad held that if a Section 263 revision order is quashed, any consequential assessment and appeals based on it are rendered inoperative. Key takeaway: assessments cannot stand on invalid foundations.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee given to Associate Enterprise is not sustainable based on settled orders of Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was initiated merely on Insight Portal data and third-party statements without verification or application of mind.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment where the Assessing Officer invoked section 147 without examining books of account or correlating bank deposits with returned income.
The Tribunal upheld addition of demonetisation cash deposits after rejecting the claim that funds came from old cash withdrawals. Mere assertion of past withdrawals, without evidence of cash retention, was held insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after April 2021 were valid. The Tribunal held that notices issued beyond the surviving time limit were barred, rendering all reassessment proceedings void.
The assessee sought relief citing internal lapses and adviser dependence. The Tribunal ruled that consistent audits and filings undermined claims of ignorance. Long delays require specific, convincing justification, which was absent.
