Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
Delhi High Court quashes reassessment for AY 2016-17 in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, holding sanction by PCIT invalid under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court restored the ITAT’s order, ruling that a temporary lull in business due to the absence of a contract does not constitute cessation if the intention and efforts to continue (like correspondence and bidding) exist. The decision allows the non-resident company to claim business expenditure under Section 37(1) and set-off unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2).
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer post Faceless Assessment instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre is void and invalid. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order which had wrongly confirmed a 37% surcharge on a Discretionary Trust with low income, relying on a precedent later clarified by the Tribunal. The ruling establishes that levying the highest 37% surcharge rate on MMR trusts, without considering the income slabs, leads to legal absurdity and is incorrect.
The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the Section 147 reopening as the notice was issued within the four-year limit because the assessee hadn’t filed a return. However, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the Section 50C capital gains addition, ruling that the AO is bound by the DVO’s accepted valuation after making a reference.
The case confirms that the CBDT’s Section 151A notification makes the NFAC/NPAC the sole authority for issuing Section 148 reassessment notices after March 29, 2022.4 The ITAT ruled that the local AO lacked the legal authority, rendering the entire reassessment process and order non est.
The ITAT held that alleged on-money based on an unverified photocopy of a sale agreement could not be added to income, emphasizing that a registered sale deed is the primary document. Furthermore, payments made in the next financial year cannot be taxed in the current Assessment Year, leading to a significant deletion of the unexplained investment addition.
The ITAT held that a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) is mandatory when the taxpayer objects to the stamp duty valuation of the property sold. The Tribunal set aside the addition of short-term capital gains, ruling that the AO erred by directly adopting the jantri value without obtaining a DVO report, and remanded the matter for re-adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the additional tax demand raised by applying Section 50C through Section 154 (Rectification), ruling that this aspect of the transaction must be adjudicated simultaneously with the primary, remanded issues of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement. The final computation must await the fresh determination of the capital gains after the DVO report and verification of expenses.
