The ITAT Ranchi held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot apply where the property purchase agreement was executed before the provision existed, even if the sale deed was registered later.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive when the notice fails to specify the exact charge or applicable clause. A vague and routine penalty notice violates mandatory legal requirements, rendering the penalty invalid.
The tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive when income is assessed purely on estimated gross profit after rejecting books. Additions based on estimation do not amount to under-reporting or misreporting of income.
The appeals involved common challenges to reassessment proceedings across several years. As CIT(A) had not ruled on these issues, the Tribunal ordered a remand for fresh decision.
Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) The ITAT Ranchi quashed the reassessment for AY 2013–14, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect. The assessee’s original assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny of share application money and share premium, including issuance of […]
The Tribunal held that reopening completed scrutiny assessments beyond four years is invalid when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. The key takeaway is that Section 147’s first proviso is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
The issue was whether old unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward beyond eight years. The tribunal upheld unlimited carry-forward post-2001 amendment, reaffirming that such depreciation can be set off without time restriction.
The issue was whether agricultural income was rightly disallowed for lack of proof. The tribunal deleted the addition after the Revenue’s own inspection confirmed active cultivation, reinforcing that verified facts override assumptions.
The issue was determination of income when the assessee failed to maintain books of account. The Tribunal held that an 8% or 4% estimate was excessive and fixed profit at a reasonable 2% of turnover.
The matter was sent back as the appellate authority did not examine the plea for allowance in the year of later TDS payment. The ruling stresses complete adjudication of all grounds raised.
