The Tribunal allowed withdrawal after noting that the case was already remanded under section 251(1)(a). The once a matter is reopened before the AO, the assessee may abandon the pending appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot suffer due to the AO’s inaction under section 270AA(4), directing grant of immunity and cancelling the 270A penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based on third-party search without giving the assessee a chance to examine evidence violated natural justice, deleting ₹2.04 Cr and ₹64.11 Lakh for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed filing was bona fide due to disputes and legal ambiguities, and the declared income was fully accepted. No penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
ITAT confirmed that External Development Charges paid to HUDA constitute payment for work, making TDS deduction mandatory and sustaining the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that a 148 notice issued on 03.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 violated Section 149(1)(b)’s six-year limitation, rendering entire reassessment void. The is that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
Court held that barter transactions between Jammu & Kashmir and PoK qualify as intra-state supplies, making GST applicable. The ruling upholds Section 74 notices as valid and directs traders to pursue statutory remedies.
ITAT held that delay must be assessed from the date of service, condoned a 474-day delay, and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the 42-day delay on merits.
