The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
The Court held that exclusion clause 5 could not justify repudiation of the boiler explosion claim. The insurer cannot rely on post-accident discovery of latent defects to deny a valid claim under a properly issued policy.
The ITAT ruled that additions under Section 69 based solely on third-party statements and unverified documents cannot stand. Key takeaway: credible, corroborated evidence is essential for tax assessments.
The Tribunal remitted the case for fresh adjudication after observing that the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merit. Assessee was directed to furnish evidence to substantiate exemption of corpus donations under section 11(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that section 115JB is not applicable to banks constituted as ‘corresponding new banks’ under the Banking Companies Act. As a result, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of bad debts became unsustainable. The ruling clarifies that MAT provisions cannot be applied where the statutory scope excludes the assessee.
The CIT(A)’s assumption of delay was corrected, restoring the appeal for adjudication. The ruling reinforces that statutory timelines are calculated from actual notice, ensuring fairness in tax appeals.
A postmaster who misappropriated public money was removed despite later repaying the amounts. The High Court’s order reinstating him was overturned for exceeding the scope of judicial review. The ruling highlights that integrity and adherence to rules are critical in public service.
The Tribunal held that reopening notices and assessment orders under section 148 issued in the PAN of a deceased person are invalid. The ruling reinforces that reassessment proceedings require notices to be addressed to the correct taxpayer to maintain legal jurisdiction.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted in audited books, they cannot be reclassified as unexplained cash credits. The addition of ₹41.74 lakh was struck down as it caused double taxation.
