The issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and retracted statements lacked corroboration, leading to deletion of the ₹100 crore addition.
The Tribunal held that dispatch records alone do not establish valid service of intimation under section 143(1). Rectification under section 154 must be considered on merits where service is disputed.
The ITAT ruled that taxing section 28 interest as income from other sources through rectification was invalid. Where the issue is debatable and supported by binding precedent, section 154 cannot be invoked.
The issue was whether section 68 additions could survive when loans were already repaid. The Tribunal held that once the assessee is no longer a beneficiary, such additions are unsustainable.
Gujarat High Court held that notice under section 148A(b) cannot be issued for verification on the part of the Assessing Officer. Such verification is to be conducted u/s. 148A(a) prior to issuance of notice. Thus, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Patna held that consolidated approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act granted in mechanical manner by JCIT without application of mind is invalid and hence assessment framed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, post introduction of ‘Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, is bad and illegal in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is quashed and set aside.
The tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and adopted a plausible legal view. The PCIT cannot substitute his opinion merely because another interpretation is possible.
The tribunal ruled that statements of third parties cannot be relied upon unless the assessee is provided copies and allowed cross-examination. Denial of this right renders the additions legally untenable.
