The Supreme Court issued notice on whether delay in filing ITR can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b). The High Court had refused relief, holding that internal director disputes do not constitute genuine hardship.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of share purchase cost under Section 115BBE, arising from alleged bogus LTCG, is interlinked with the quantum issue.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure contemplated u/s. 138B of the Customs Act not followed. Accordingly, penalties-imposed u/s. 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since AO took plausible view of treating the interest chargeable u/s 28 of the Act being attributable to the business & allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held only ₹1.24 crore accumulation from A.Y. 1994-95 survives for possible Section 11(3) taxation; earlier years’ accumulations were non-existent, and matter restored to CIT(A) for limited verification.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to interfere with condonation of 116 days’ delay and stay of disobedience proceedings, finding no arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion.
The Court upheld condonation of 116 days’ delay in filing revision, holding that internal decision-making in a large organization constituted sufficient cause and warranted limited appellate interference.
Observing that Rule 86A is meant to secure revenue pending adjudication, the Court found the officer’s stance legally unsustainable and mandated time-bound decision-making.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
