Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank can proceed against one or all personal guarantors of Corporate Debtor u/s. 95. Merely because bank proceeded against only one personal guarantor cannot be any reason to reject any application u/s. 95 of IBC.
Tribunal held that additions made solely on ex-parte proceedings cannot stand when the taxpayer was unable to comply due to age-related limitations. The case was remanded for fresh assessment with a direction to provide proper opportunity.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
Tribunal clarified that mere generation or digital signing on ITBA does not mean a notice is issued. Proper dispatch to the assessee’s email or portal before the statutory deadline is required for validity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee’s net worth was substantially higher than the value of its investments, creating a presumption that investments were made from own funds. As no interest expenditure was linked to exempt income, the AO’s disallowance under Section 14A was held unsustainable.
ITAT held that a 147 reopening based on the incorrect assumption that no return was filed is invalid. Since the assessee proved the return was filed, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based solely on an Insight Portal flag without independent verification is invalid. It held that absence of tangible material and incorrect factual assumptions renders the entire 147 proceeding void.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond three years require approval from PCCIT/PDGIT, not PCIT. The invalid sanction vitiated all proceedings, following Rajeev Bansal.
