The issue was whether Section 263 could be invoked despite adequate verification by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible, evidence-based view cannot be revised merely due to a differing opinion.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that expenses covered by a binding APA cannot be revisited under section 37 on a “need or benefit” test. Reopening settled transfer pricing issues would defeat the statutory purpose of APA.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal clarified that revisionary jurisdiction presupposes a valid assessment order. Where Section 153C itself is time-barred, Section 263 has no application.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in fraudulent investment scheme is allowed since the applicant has satisfied the twin conditions as envisaged under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Accordingly, the bail application is admitted.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid since the section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16, making it barred by limitation under settled Supreme Court law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee given to Associate Enterprise is not sustainable based on settled orders of Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a search assessment completed under Section 153C with proper approval under Section 153D. Unless such approval is shown to be erroneous, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
The dispute centered on jurisdiction to assess under Section 153A. The Tribunal clarified that Kabul Chawla principles do not bar additions in abated assessments and ordered a de novo assessment.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the impugned scrip i.e. Kyra Landscapes Ltd. is not in the list of shares in the investigation report in case of project bogus LTCG/STCL. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
