The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Tribunal held that recurring software expenses such as licence renewals and database support fees are revenue in nature since no capital asset or ownership right was created. Deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
ITAT held that under the amended law, reopening after three years is barred where alleged escaped income is under ₹50 lakh. The notice issued under Section 148 was declared invalid and reassessment proceedings were quashed.
ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In absence of corroboration and cross-examination, the cash investment addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that once provisions were disallowed and taxed in an earlier year, their subsequent reversal cannot be taxed again. It directed withdrawal of income offered to prevent double taxation.
ITAT held that goodwill arising from acquisition of a business as a going concern represents a bundle of commercial and business rights. Following Supreme Court precedent, depreciation under Section 32 was allowed for AY 2018–19.
