The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is invalid. Such a defect strikes at the root of the assessment and cannot be cured.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional officer is void. Jurisdictional compliance is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A applies only to money not recorded in books of account. Additions based on duly recorded, bank-routed transactions were found unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted an addition under Section 69A after holding that cash deposits were explained through prior bank withdrawals. The ruling affirms that redeposit of own withdrawn cash cannot be treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that past cash withdrawals cannot justify demonetisation deposits without evidence of continued cash holding. The is that unexplained deposits attract section 69A.
The issue was whether a charitable trust could lose exemption due to late uploading of Form 10B. ITAT held that Form 10B is procedural and delay alone cannot defeat exemption when audit was completed in time.
Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹21.88 lakh partly reduced to 0.5% corporate guarantee fee. Tribunal confirms international transaction status but applies consistent methodology with prior years.
ITAT quashed a reassessment under section 147 as the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2), rendering the assessment legally invalid.
Tribunal held that commission could not be treated as bogus where the recipient company’s existence was established through income tax returns, refunds, and official records, leading to deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that legal control under a JDA constitutes transfer for capital gains purposes. The assessee must provide acquisition cost details for recomputation.
