The issue was whether reassessment can survive when no addition is made on the stated reasons for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reassessment is invalid, and the AO cannot make unrelated additions.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 54F can be raised during reassessment if it relates to the income under scrutiny. The case clarifies that reassessment scope includes such connected claims.
The Court held that failure to consider a filed reply invalidates the assessment. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that time limits introduced later cannot apply retrospectively to deny amendment requests. The ruling clarifies that exporters can seek corrections for past errors during scheme transitions.
The Court examined whether GST cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. It held that authorities must consider restoration if the taxpayer files pending returns and pays dues. The key takeaway is that compliance can enable reconsideration of cancellation.
The Court examined whether a complaint arising from a family dispute can be entertained in misconduct proceedings. It held that such complaints are maintainable if they disclose professional misconduct.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, GST records, and banking transactions cannot be treated as bogus. It ruled that documentary evidence outweighed doubts raised by the department.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
