The Tribunal held that where interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance is warranted. It applied the presumption that investments are made from own funds.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not deduct tax due to binding interim directions of the High Court. As a result, it could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201.
The Tribunal rejected reopening based on common reasons for multiple years without year-specific justification. The absence of relevant material for AY 2010–11 led to quashing of reassessment. The ruling stresses precision in reopening proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10AB cannot alone justify rejection of 80G approval. It directed reconsideration on merits, emphasizing genuine charitable activity over procedural lapses.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an unauthorized officer renders the entire assessment invalid. It ruled that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured and quashed the assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issue. The ruling emphasizes that mere disagreement with enquiry results does not justify revision.
The ITAT held that reopening was invalid as it was based on the same material already examined during the original assessment. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded issue.
