The issue was whether a notice dated 31-03-2021 but digitally signed on 01-04-2021 was valid. The ITAT held the notice was issued under the new regime without following section 148A, rendering reassessment void.
The AO added ₹1 crore based on alleged cash receipts from third-party material. The Tribunal held the reopening itself was invalid, so the addition could not survive.
The issue was whether property attachment under PMLA survives after discharge of some accused. The Tribunal held that as long as the scheduled offence continues against a principal accused, attachment of properties cannot be lifted.
The AO issued reassessment notices during the post-Ashish Agrawal transition phase. Applying later Supreme Court law, the ITAT held AY 2015-16 is beyond the permissible reopening period.
The appellants argued that old properties could not be attached under PMLA. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that “value of proceeds of crime” covers such assets when tainted funds are unavailable.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable because of pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.
The AO questioned genuineness and love and affection behind the gift. The ITAT held that once relationship and capacity are proved through documents, no addition can survive.
NCLAT Delhi held that balance sheet entries are reliable evidence of existence of financial debt. Accordingly, since debt and default against Corporate Debtor established, admission of application u/s. 7 of IBC justified.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
