The High Court held that reassessment notices issued physically by jurisdictional officers instead of faceless authorities violate Section 151A. The ruling sets aside non-compliant notices while tying the final outcome to pending Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court set aside notices issued under Sections 148A and consequential reassessment orders after holding that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The relief, however, remains subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP.
GSTAT held that retaining the same ticket prices after GST reductions amounted to profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹8.99 lakh with interest after finding that consumers were denied the benefit of lower tax rates.
The Tribunal held that the special tax regime under Section 115BBE is confined to additions made under Sections 68 to 69D. Additions arising under normal provisions of the Act cannot automatically attract higher taxation.
The Tribunal held that preference share capital cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit once the assessee establishes identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors. Documentary evidence and banking records were found sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that notices issued after three years from the relevant assessment year require prior approval from the PCCIT. Approval from the PCIT in such cases renders the reassessment notice legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee who delayed filing an appeal while awaiting disposal of a Section 154 application had shown sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessee never claimed the alleged expenditure as a deduction. Without any allowance in the assessment order, there can be no prejudice to Revenue.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source of funds is explained. Mere Client Code Modification information, without supporting evidence of tax evasion, is insufficient for making additions.
The Tribunal ruled that proportionate interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained when the assessee has adequate reserves and interest-free funds to cover the advances. The Revenue failed to rebut the presumption recognized by higher courts.
