ITAT Delhi held that obtaining sanction u/s 151 from PCIT instead of PCCIT for reopening beyond 3 years invalidates reassessment. Jurisdictional defect renders entire proceedings void.
The Court ruled that the Tribunal failed to examine key contractual clauses and judicial precedents before denying a deduction claim. It held that such non-consideration amounted to a mistake apparent from the record.
ITAT Pune allowed a retired PSU bank employee to claim leave encashment exemption of Rs. 6,97,100 under Section 10(10AA) after limit was revised from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 25,00,000. The ruling confirms that updated notifications can affect eligible deductions.
Court held that a legal representative’s liability is limited to inherited assets and set aside attachment because no evidence showed petitioner inherited property from firm’s partners.
The authority’s rejection was held unsustainable because it relied on an incorrect interpretation of the circular governing delayed Form 10B filings. The Court granted relief to the petitioner.
The Tribunal held that MAT relief under section 115JB cannot continue once a company’s net worth becomes positive, as the scheme required only consideration—not automatic grant—of exemption.
The Court found that authorities incorrectly initiated Section 130 action based on survey findings, reaffirming that excess stock cases must follow the mechanism in Sections 73/74.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 130 could not be invoked for excess stock found during survey. Orders were set aside and refund directed.
The Court held that failure to fill Part B of the e-way bill, caused by a technical error, did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside due to lack of findings on evasion intent.
The Court quashed the adjudication and appellate orders after finding that the prescribed Circular on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A discrepancies was not followed. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
