ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued with approval of the Member of CBDT instead of Pr. CCIT is void and invalid. Accordingly, order passed under section 147 is without legal standing and hence quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that post consent affidavit representing at least 90% of the value of the unsecured creditors, dispensation from convening meeting of unsecured creditors can be granted under section 230(9) of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not questioned on stamp duty valuation and old payment sources. It remanded the case for fresh assessment with directions to consider explanations afresh.
The Revenue argued that incriminating material justified Section 153C action against a non-searched person. ITAT held that High Court quashing of notices conclusively ends jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The issue was whether an assessment under the Black Money Act can survive once the foundational notice is held invalid. The Tribunal held that an invalid Section 10(1) notice nullifies all subsequent proceedings.
The issue was denial of appellate remedy despite income being below taxable limits. The Tribunal ruled that appeals must be admitted and decided on merits in such cases.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the limitation period is valid. The Tribunal held that a notice issued beyond the prescribed time is void, nullifying the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether DVO-based valuation could inflate long-term capital gains for a co-owner. The Tribunal held that once co-owner relief applies, the DVO-based addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The issue was whether an appeal can be dismissed outright for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal held that appellate authorities must first examine if advance tax was actually payable before rejecting the appeal.
