The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal ex-parte without giving detailed reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking order violates section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether reassessment notices could be issued by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless reassessment scheme became mandatory. The Tribunal held that such notices are void, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The issue was whether an appeal involving large additions could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that technical dismissal was improper and ordered remand with costs. Key takeaway: meritorious matters should be decided on merits, not limitation alone.
The Tribunal held that once a closing cash balance is disclosed and accepted in a prior year’s scrutiny assessment, it cannot be questioned as unexplained opening cash in a subsequent year.
The Court examined whether procedural rigidity and expired panels could defeat disability rights. It held that denial of employment without reasonable accommodation violates constitutional guarantees and disability law.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated by a jurisdictional officer after faceless schemes became mandatory. The Tribunal held that notices issued outside the faceless mechanism lack jurisdiction and invalidate the reassessment.
Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Where Escapement Is Below ₹50 Lakh — ITAT Pune Quashes Reassessment The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment for AY 2016-17, holding that the notice under section 148 dated 27-07-2022 was without jurisdiction, as the alleged income escaping assessment was […]
