The Tribunal upheld addition of interest accrued on security deposits that was not disclosed in the return. It ruled that accrued interest must be taxed when not voluntarily offered by the assessee.
ITAT held that notice under Section 143(2) issued contrary to CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 is invalid. Since CBDT circulars are binding, the defective notice vitiated the entire assessment.
ITAT held that labeling transactions as accommodation entries without investigation is impermissible. With all three ingredients satisfied, the addition of ₹86.90 lakh was removed.
ITAT held that mere signature or rubber-stamp approval under Section 151 is invalid if it does not reflect independent satisfaction. The reassessment and consequent additions were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated by NFAC before Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 were without jurisdiction. Since Section 151A became effective only upon notification, the entire reassessment and related penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that providing PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and financial records satisfies statutory requirements. With no defects found by the AO, the addition was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening of assessment is void where the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to communication of sanction under Section 151. Such procedural lapse renders the entire reassessment null and void.
TAT Kolkata ruled that reopening based on unverified foreign information amounted to borrowed satisfaction. Since the sanctioning authority granted approval mechanically, the reassessment was declared void.
The Tribunal held that once income is declared under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, individual cash deposits cannot be separately added. The sustained addition was set aside and deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as it relied solely on existing records. In absence of new tangible material, reopening amounted to impermissible review.
