The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated while the time to file a belated return was still open. The Tribunal held such reopening premature and void, as income cannot be said to have escaped assessment.
The case involved a massive section 68 addition sustained solely due to non-admission of evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was initiated merely on Insight Portal data and third-party statements without verification or application of mind.
ITAT Mumbai (E Bench) in Estate of Vandravan P. Shah vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 5401, 5402 & 5403/Mum/2024; AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18; order dated 23.12.2025) has partly rejected the assessee’s jurisdictional challenge and upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of the deceased through legal representative u/s 159, while also sustaining the disallowance of deduction u/s 35AC on alleged bogus donation to Navjeevan Charitable Trust.
ITAT deleted additions as alleged cash jewellery purchases were based solely on third-party material without granting cross-examination or furnishing full evidence.
Once the Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice u/s 148 and all consequential proceedings, the Revenue’s challenge to deletion of deduction u/s 80IB(10) becomes purely academic.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29.03.2022 are void, as only a Faceless Assessing Officer can act under the faceless regime.
The issue was whether External Development Charges paid to a statutory authority attract TDS. The Tribunal held that such payments are subject to section 194C, following binding High Court precedent.
The issue was whether renting out an auditorium made a theatre trust commercial in nature. The Tribunal held that such receipts did not defeat charitable status and upheld ex-emption under sections 11 and 12.
The issue was whether software development and start-up consultancy could qualify as charitable purposes. The Tribunal held that such activities are commercial in nature and do not fall under section 2(15), justifying denial of registration.
