ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued beyond three years where the alleged escaped income is less than ₹50 lakh. The reassessment proceedings were therefore declared invalid and quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus merely based on Sales Tax Department information when the assessee produced invoices, bank statements, stock records, and delivery challans. The Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the alleged non-genuine purchases, if any, should be taxed.
The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained where the tax department failed to establish actual receipt of interest income. The key takeaway is that presumptions and notings in seized documents cannot substitute proof of income.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
Mumbai ITAT ruled that where a capital asset was acquired before 01.04.2001, the claim for adopting fair market value as on that date must be examined on merits. The key takeaway is that statutory valuation rights cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone.
Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-tax Act. Since ownership of the land and building remained with MSRTC, lease receipts could not be taxed under the house property head.
