The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
A 284-day delay in filing appeals was condoned after accepting explanations including medical issues and disruptions. The key takeaway is that relief was granted but balanced by imposing costs to deter repeated non-compliance.
ITAT Chennai remanded a case involving Rs. 11.26 lakh cash gifts back to the CIT(A), allowing the NRI assessee another opportunity to substantiate the claim with supporting documents.
ITAT Chennai confirmed that 8% profit estimation for a civil contractor was reasonable, rejecting the assessee’s 6% claim and AO’s 10% estimate, emphasizing consistency with subsequent years’ presumptive returns.
ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
The Tribunal ruled that the amended reassessment law does not revive assessment years that had become time-barred under the earlier statutory provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
