ITAT Patna held that consolidated approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act granted in mechanical manner by JCIT without application of mind is invalid and hence assessment framed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, post introduction of ‘Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, is bad and illegal in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is quashed and set aside.
The tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and adopted a plausible legal view. The PCIT cannot substitute his opinion merely because another interpretation is possible.
The tribunal ruled that statements of third parties cannot be relied upon unless the assessee is provided copies and allowed cross-examination. Denial of this right renders the additions legally untenable.
ITAT Delhi held that day of arrival should be excluded while computing number of stayed in India. Accordingly, the status of assessee is non-resident. Thus, the appeals of the assessee is allowed.
The Tribunal confirmed deletion of additions where the AO made no effort to verify consignees, transporters, or stock movement. Proper documentation and bank-received sale proceeds proved transaction genuineness.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition made on the basis of third-party WhatsApp chat without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal examined whether lease rent and allied charges from an IT Park were business income or property income. It held that systematic commercial operation with integrated services warrants business income treatment.
The issue was whether section 68 could be invoked for alleged on-money payments absent direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of corroborative material, the addition must be deleted.
The issue was whether the full value of alleged bogus purchases could be added to income. The Tribunal upheld that only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase value.
