The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned a 152-day delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the delay was unintentional and did not benefit the appellant. This reinforces the justice-oriented approach in tax appeal filings.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
ITAT held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the audit report in Form 10B was filed before CPC processed the return, even if the return itself was belated.
NCLAT Delhi held that once a transaction has been held to a fraudulent transaction there is no limitation to look back if the other ingredients of Section 66 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are satisfied. Accordingly, appeal of appellants is dismissed.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings under Section 279(1) after the petitioner challenged the prosecution sanction, citing lack of collegium approval and denial of personal hearing.
