The Tribunal held that once a closing cash balance is disclosed and accepted in a prior year’s scrutiny assessment, it cannot be questioned as unexplained opening cash in a subsequent year.
The Court examined whether procedural rigidity and expired panels could defeat disability rights. It held that denial of employment without reasonable accommodation violates constitutional guarantees and disability law.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated by a jurisdictional officer after faceless schemes became mandatory. The Tribunal held that notices issued outside the faceless mechanism lack jurisdiction and invalidate the reassessment.
Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Where Escapement Is Below ₹50 Lakh — ITAT Pune Quashes Reassessment The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment for AY 2016-17, holding that the notice under section 148 dated 27-07-2022 was without jurisdiction, as the alleged income escaping assessment was […]
The issue was whether deduction under section 80P could be allowed when the return was filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with section 80AC made the assessment erroneous, justifying revision under section 263.
The dispute concerned denial of property purchase cost where payments were made by a close relative. The Tribunal held that once source and utilization of funds are established, such payments must be allowed as cost of acquisition. Key takeaway
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The issue was whether rejection of books and enhancement of gross profit were justified due to alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld partial relief, holding that GP estimation must be reasonable and supported by facts, not solely by procedural lapses.
The Assessing Officer assumed that no return of income was filed while recording reasons under section 147. The Tribunal ruled that such factually incorrect reasons vitiate the assumption of jurisdiction itself.
The issue was whether stamp duty value on the agreement date could replace the registration-date value for section 56 additions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the claimed earlier payment. Key takeaway: benefit of the proviso depends on proving the agreement and payment date.
