The Tribunal set aside adjustments made under Section 143(1) after finding ambiguity on whether reasonable opportunity was granted. Issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
ITAT Lucknow held that additions under Section 68 in search cases cannot be made without incriminating material found during search. Penny stock LTCG additions were deleted and departmental appeals dismissed.
ITAT Lucknow held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked without specifying what enquiries the AO failed to conduct. As the PCIT did not spell out such deficiencies, the revision order was quashed.
ITAT Lucknow held that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely due to incorrect section selection in the ITR. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine eligibility on merits after proper hearing.
ITAT Lucknow ruled that Golden Harvest Scheme benefit is a sales discount, not interest u/s 2(28A); hence no TDS u/s 194A applies and 201(1)/(1A) demand was quashed.
The issue concerned reopening based on notices never validly served on the assessee. The Tribunal held that defective service of notices strikes at the root of jurisdiction and invalidates the reassessment.
The Tribunal refused to send the matter back for valuation after finding a clear statutory breach. The addition was deleted outright, reinforcing strict compliance with valuation provisions.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ruling explains the procedural outcome when a section 263 order is set aside. Original assessment appeals are restored, while appeals from consequential orders are dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on a specific appellate direction is legally valid under section 150(1). The key takeaway is that such directions must be challenged separately and cannot be questioned collaterally in reassessment proceedings.
