ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a notice under section 148 issued beyond the statutory period is invalid, quashing a ₹115 crore reassessment of a share-trading company. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to “surviving time” limits, making the reassessment void.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
ITAT held that absence of earlier evidence led to addition under section 68. Now, assessee allowed to submit all books, bank statements, and capital accounts, subject to compliance conditions.
The Income Tax authorities treated LTCG from Kappac Pharma shares as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal confirmed the transactions were genuine, supported by demat and broker records. The addition under Section 68 and related commission expenses were deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that banks can claim deductions for provisions for bad debts on total income, including capital gains, rejecting the CIT’s restriction to business income.
ITAT held that Section 263 requires the PCIT to conduct independent inquiry before declaring an order erroneous. Since the PCIT relied only on assumptions of inadequate inquiry, the revision was invalid.
The Tribunal held that although transportation proof was lacking and the supplier was unverifiable, accepted sales established that trading had occurred. It ruled that only the profit element of 2% could be added, and the addition could not be taxed under section 115BBE.
Holds that once a tax dispute is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, Section 263 revision cannot be invoked. Confirms that VSV grants finality and bars reopening of settled issues.
Tribunal holds that the CBDT circular exempting commercial transactions was wrongly ignored; AO must re-verify if the shareholder loan was a genuine business accommodation before taxing under Section 2(22)(e).
ITAT ruled that organising Kathas or Yagnas for charitable fundraising does not constitute a religious object under Section 80G. The trust’s dominant objects were charitable, and expenditure on religious events was minimal. Approval under 80G(5) was therefore directed by the Tribunal.
