The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal, ITAT ruled that proper sanction is mandatory under the new reassessment regime. Non-compliance with Section 151 rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that mere reliance on Sales Tax Department information and unserved notices cannot justify full addition. Since turnover and quantitative records were accepted, only estimated profit could be taxed.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that a combined approval under Section 153D for multiple years vitiated proceedings. It held that such approval renders the assessment legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside denial of exemption where authorities taxed interest and other receipts without examining eligibility under Section 11. The issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹2 crore additions, holding assessment based solely on third-party investigation report and assumed 3% commission unsustainable without independent evidence or proof under Sec 69A.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)’s findings while restricting addition to 12.5% of purchases. As key facts were not properly examined, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
he Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and strict proof of concealment is required. Estimated additions alone cannot justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal ruled that assessment orders in e-proceedings must be digitally signed as per CBDT instructions. A manually signed order was held illegal and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai allowed foreign tax credit of ₹90,208 despite delay in filing Form 67, holding Rule 128 directory and procedural lapse cannot defeat substantive Sec 90/DTAA claim.
