ITAT Ahmedabad held that if a Section 263 revision order is quashed, any consequential assessment and appeals based on it are rendered inoperative. Key takeaway: assessments cannot stand on invalid foundations.
The reassessment was initiated for AY 2013-14 using reasons recorded for AY 2012-13. ITAT held that reopening for the wrong year is void, causing the entire Section 147 assessment to collapse.
ITAT Jaipur confirmed that Section 270A(6)(b) exclusion is inapplicable when accounts are incorrect or incomplete. Key takeaway: defective records make estimated disallowances liable to penalty.
The issue was whether leave encashment exemption should be capped at ₹3 lakh or ₹25 lakh. ITAT held that the enhanced ₹25 lakh limit applies, making the entire ₹13.12 lakh fully exempt.
The issue was whether daily pooja and religious ceremonies qualify as charitable activities. ITAT held that worship-centric activities are purely religious and do not meet the statutory test for charitable registration.
The AO disallowed a weighted deduction relying only on a subsequent CBDT list. ITAT ruled that factual verification and proof of bogus donation are mandatory before denying the claim.
The issue was whether an extrapolated SCO value could justify unexplained investment in the buyer’s hands. ITAT held that once the seller’s extrapolation was rejected, the buyer’s addition could not survive.
The Assessing Officer treated full bank deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that agricultural turnover cannot be taxed entirely and allowed only an estimated 10% addition.
Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Central Circle Cannot Assume Reassessment Powers — Section 148 Notice Issued Outside Faceless Regime Held Void The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under Section 147 and consequential penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC in the case of Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi v. ACIT, holding that […]
The issue centered on employees’ PF contributions and statutory due dates post-Checkmate ruling. The ITAT held that detailed verification was still required, warranting remand.
