The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation was taxable as per settled law, the exemption claim for land compensation required verification. The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
Cash deposits followed by regular transfers to the telecom operator established a clear business cycle. The ruling confirms that explained business receipts cannot be treated as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal held that a Section 148A(d) order passed by a jurisdictional AO after the faceless notification is without legal authority. Any reassessment founded on such an order is void for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that post-notification reassessment notices must strictly follow the faceless assessment framework. Issuance by a jurisdictional AO renders the notice without authority and the reassessment unsustainable.
ITAT ruled that unverified electronic records recovered from a third party do not constitute reliable evidence of cash payments. Additions based solely on such data were deleted.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
The issue was whether a trader declaring income under Section 44AD could face additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding such additions contrary to law.
