The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO invalidates the entire assessment. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured later, making the assessment void from inception.
The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash deposits.
The issue was whether cash salary and commission payments attracted disallowance under section 40A(3). The ITAT held that since each payment was below the per-day statutory limit, the disallowance of ₹2.75 crore was unsustainable.
Indian City Properties Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 263 on the proposal of the AO is not sustainable under the Act, as the PCIT failed to independently apply his mind and record satisfaction of the twin conditions. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B after […]
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted a penalty imposed for alleged non-maintenance of accounts. It held that audited books, even if defective, do not attract penalty under Section 271A.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment issued beyond three years requires approval from the PCCIT and not the PCIT. Since sanction was obtained from an incompetent authority, the entire reassessment was held void ab initio.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could still be treated as unexplained after repayment. The Tribunal held that once repayment is recorded by the AO, the addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside a Section 69C addition where subcontract payments were backed by bills, accounts, and TDS compliance. Non-filing of return by the recipient was held insufficient to brand the expense as bogus.
