The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153. Only the actual period lost during search proceedings could be excluded, not the full 180 days.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded the capital gains issue for verification of demolition expenses under Section 48. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine evidence before allowing indexed cost.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that property payments were properly explained with bank records and affidavits. Additions under Section 69 for cash deposit and stamp duty were deleted.
ITAT held that cash loans taken for son’s education were bona fide and supported by evidence. Reasonable cause under Section 273B justified deletion of penalty.
The Court held that there is no provision for deducting GST, incentive advance, or festival advance from retiral dues and directed full payment without deductions.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
Holding that GST registration is not confined to individual districts, the Court ruled that the eligibility condition lacked rational nexus with procurement objectives. The clause was struck down as unconstitutional.
The Tribunal set aside adjustments made under Section 143(1) after finding ambiguity on whether reasonable opportunity was granted. Issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that economic offences involving public money cannot be quashed unless no offence is disclosed. The petition was dismissed for lack of exceptional grounds.
