The Tribunal upheld revision after finding that the Assessing Officer accepted explanations without proper verification. The ruling stresses that insufficient enquiry can justify action under Section 263.
The ITAT held that denying registration without adequate opportunity is invalid. Authorities must fairly examine replies and documents before rejection.
The dispute concerned computation of capital gains on sale of shares affected by corporate actions. The Tribunal affirmed that detailed tranche-wise analysis and statutory indexation justified allowance of long-term capital loss.
The Tribunal held that a transfer pricing order passed beyond statutory limitation is non est in law. As a result, the assessee ceased to be an eligible assessee under section 144C, making the final assessment beyond limitation and void.
The Tribunal deleted a penalty imposed for alleged non-maintenance of accounts. It held that audited books, even if defective, do not attract penalty under Section 271A.
The issue was whether a penalty could survive when the notice failed to specify the exact limb of section 271(1)(c). The ITAT held such ambiguity fatal, quashing the entire penalty as void.
The issue was whether the final order was passed within the statutory timeline after DRP directions. The Tribunal held that delay beyond one month under section 144C(13) renders the order void.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The High Court held that denying continuation of registration by relying on an undisclosed investigation report violates natural justice. Since the trust was not given access to the material used against it, the order was set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal held that reassessment issued beyond three years requires approval from the PCCIT and not the PCIT. Since sanction was obtained from an incompetent authority, the entire reassessment was held void ab initio.
