The issue was whether reassessment could survive when the mandatory section 148 no-tice was sent to an old address. The Tribunal held that improper service vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the entire reassessment void.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received for grant of non-exclusive broadcasting rights of feature films cannot be termed as “royalty” within the parameters of “royalty” as defined in Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order set aside.
Karnataka High Court held that the power of revocation of detention orders is specifically vested with the Central Government and not with the detaining authority under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [COFEPOSA Act].
The issue was whether additions could survive when the sole reason for reopening was not challenged. The ITAT held that without a valid reopening foundation, no other additions are sustainable.
The Tribunal held that CSR contributions received with strict donor directions and refund obligations may constitute tied-up grants rather than freely available income. Such funds require factual examination before taxing them under section 11.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
The Tribunal held that deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed mechanically based on past relief. Each infrastructure project must be independently examined to determine whether it qualifies as development or is merely a works contract.
The ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 153C cannot extend beyond the statutory six assessment years. Jurisdiction assumed outside this period was held void.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
