Karnataka High Court affirmed the ITATs decision, ruling that 81 appellate orders passed by the CIT(A)-11 after the DGIT (Investigation) had explicitly directed him not to pass further orders were without jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that such orders, passed in defiance of supervisory administrative restraint, are illegal and must be reheard de novo by a competent authority.
The Delhi ITAT invalidated a reassessment, ruling the AO failed to establish independent ‘reason to believe’ and merely borrowed satisfaction from an Investigation Wing report without tangible material or a live link to the assessee’s income. This judgment establishes that reassessment cannot be based solely on second-hand, non-incriminating information from a third-party search.
in a colourful observation, the Tribunal compared Juniper’s interlinked trading and service activities to the egg-or-chicken story, holding entity-level TNMM appropriate and deleting the TP addition.
ITAT Delhi set aside a non-speaking order by CIT(A) in a ₹34.82 lakh bogus purchase case, directing de novo adjudication and allowing cross-examination on alleged accommodation entries.
Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi) Loan or Land Grab?- Benami Land Purchase through Driver – Tribunal Calls Gurushree Minerals’ Deal a Benami Ruse- Tribunal Confirms Attachment of 30.6 Hectares of Tribal Land Bought by Company The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, vide Final Order dt. 14.10.2025 in […]
Supreme Court refused to quash PMLA proceedings against JSW Steel, holding that questions on proceeds of crime must be decided by Appellate Tribunal first.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices issued beyond four years, finding AO had full knowledge of AE payments during original Section 143(3) scrutiny. Key takeaway is that re-examining previously disclosed facts or material known through TPO proceedings constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is invalid under Section 147.
ITAT Delhi sustained reopening under Section 147 but upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of every addition—covering commission income, travel expenses, rent, and salaries—after finding all claims duly supported by records. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed in full.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on acquiring 3G spectrum created an intangible asset, allowing the assessee to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. This crucial finding confirms the asset’s depreciable nature for AY 2012-13, preventing its amortization under later or inapplicable tax code sections.
The Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the Section 14A disallowance made on Srivaru Agro Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals {CIT (A))to verify the availability of the company’s own interest-free funds vis-à-vis investments and the reasonableness of administrative expenses, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Indian Bank Ltd.
