The ITAT held that reassessment is invalid where no addition is made on the sole ground for reopening, leading to the proceedings being quashed.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment for AY 2015–16 was barred by limitation as the Section 148 notice was issued beyond the permissible period. It ruled that TOLA did not extend the time limit and the proceedings were void ab initio.
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
The Supreme Court confirmed that reassessment powers under Section 148 cannot be used to bypass the statutory scheme for search cases. The decision clarifies the distinct operating fields of Sections 153C and 148.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on material seized in a third-party search must proceed under Section 153C, not Section 148. Notices issued under the general reassessment provision were set aside.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s direction to process Section 10(46) applications. The ruling affirms that existing approval under Section 10(23C) is not an absolute bar.
The High Court held that statutory bodies can surrender approval under one exemption provision and seek notification under another. Authorities were directed to process applications under Section 10(46).
The High Court held that failure to pass a reasoned final order on an informant’s reward violates the 2007 Guidelines and directed the competent committee to reconsider the claim after hearing the informant.
The appellate tribunal held that a legal representative cannot raise objections not taken by the deceased defendant. The order striking off the defence was upheld.
