The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
The Court held that post-amalgamation, the transferor company cannot claim GST refunds. Unutilised ITC must move only through the statutory transfer mechanism, not by refund.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
Issue involved whether adjudication fails if cross-examination under Section 138B is not provided. The Court held that cross-examination is mandatory only when specifically sought, and the Tribunal erred by presuming a violation without deciding this factual issue.
The ITAT ruled that rectification proceedings cannot substitute for an appellate remedy against an addition under section 69A. Absence of a mistake apparent from the record justified dismissal.
Validity of reopening and quantum of addition for alleged bogus purchases. Reopening upheld; addition restricted to 5% profit element. Key takeaway: Where sales and quantities are accepted, only embedded profits can be added.
The tribunal held that assessment under section 153C cannot be initiated without seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee. Third-party statements and assumptions, without incriminating evidence, were held insufficient to confer jurisdiction
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The ruling clarifies that unsecured loans taken and repaid during the same year through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits. Proper documentation and repayment negate allegations of bogus loans
Holding in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal clarified that high-rate taxation under section 115BBE requires clear proof of bogus receipts. Suspicion based on third-party searches is insufficient.
