The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
The issue was whether stamp duty value of redevelopment property is taxable without possession. ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies only on actual receipt, so no tax arises without possession.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal can be condoned when assessment order was not served. ITAT held that non-service constitutes sufficient cause, requiring fresh adjudication on merits.
The issue was addition of cash found during search claimed to belong to the assessee’s mother. The Tribunal allowed partial relief, accepting some explanations based on evidence and probabilities while sustaining the balance.
The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbursed. It emphasized the concept of real income and pass-through structure.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
