The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
The issue was whether utilisation of corpus donations for expenditure converts them into taxable income. The Tribunal held that corpus retains its exempt character when used as per donor directions and trust deed.
The Tribunal held that income tax appeals cannot continue during CIRP, as the IBC moratorium bars parallel proceedings. Claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan cannot be pursued.
The Tribunal held that cash advances/on-money received for an ongoing real estate project cannot be taxed before completion when the Project Completion Method is consistently followed. Income already offered and accepted in the completion year cannot be taxed again earlier.
The Tribunal upheld that quarry expenses represented the cost of procuring raw material under a valid business arrangement. Denying such costs would lead to unrealistic profit margins.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 40A(3) cannot be made on assumptions of split payments. In the absence of evidence showing lump-sum cash payments exceeding the statutory limit, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited during demonetisation was supported by evidence of cash sales and debtor collections. Once the source was substantiated, addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that recharacterization of business from ‘software development service provider’ to ‘contract R&D service provider’ not justifiable as BAPA and TPO’s earlier assessment accepted characterisation of the Assessee to be a Software Development service provider. Hence, upward transfer pricing adjustment deleted.
