The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed filing was bona fide due to disputes and legal ambiguities, and the declared income was fully accepted. No penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
ITAT confirmed that External Development Charges paid to HUDA constitute payment for work, making TDS deduction mandatory and sustaining the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that a 148 notice issued on 03.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 violated Section 149(1)(b)’s six-year limitation, rendering entire reassessment void. The is that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
Court held that barter transactions between Jammu & Kashmir and PoK qualify as intra-state supplies, making GST applicable. The ruling upholds Section 74 notices as valid and directs traders to pursue statutory remedies.
ITAT held that delay must be assessed from the date of service, condoned a 474-day delay, and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the 42-day delay on merits.
Court held that reopening was invalid because officer ignored that depreciation on goodwill had already been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based solely on audit objections without independent evaluation.
The ITAT held that crucial documents unavailable earlier must be considered, admitting them under Rule 29 and sending the ₹2.38 crore addition back for fresh examination.
The Court ruled that reassessment could not be initiated based on audit objections containing factual errors and overlooking prior accepted depreciation. The decision underscores that reopening must be based on proper evaluation of facts, not mere audit remarks.
