ITAT ruled that mere endorsement stating “Yes, I am satisfied” does not constitute valid sanction under Section 151. Mechanical approval without independent application of mind invalidated the reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal emphasized that technical breaches cannot defeat genuine exemption claims under Section 11. The appellate order confirming CPC’s denial was reversed.
ITAT ruled that issuance of shares at premium does not automatically attract addition under Section 68. Proper documentation and lack of enquiry by the AO led to deletion of the addition.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
The ITAT Kolkata held that earnest money received under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which was later refunded through banking channels upon cancellation of the agreement, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
The Tribunal found repeated factual errors in recorded reasons and notices. As the reopening lacked live nexus with escapement of income, it was struck down as a nullity.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash introduced by partners as capital contribution in an LLP does not attract Section 269SS and therefore penalty under Section 271D was invalid.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
ITAT held that for reassessment beyond three years, approval must be obtained from the PCCIT under Section 151. Sanction from PCIT was held invalid, rendering the notice and assessment void.
