Madras High Court held that assessee can raise additional ground of validity of reassessment proceedings in terms of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, ITAT justified in accepting the ground that reassessment was change of opinion.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that income and valuation additions based solely on third-party digital data or statements cannot be made without corroboration from the assessee’s records, leading to deletion of disputed amounts.
CESTAT ruled that statements and WhatsApp messages cannot be treated as evidence for imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 without following procedural safeguards, including examination in chief and cross-examination.
Rajesh Todwal S/o Prem Chand Todwal Vs Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Summary: The Rajasthan High Court heard a petition challenging a notice dated 28 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) […]
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
The High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of through the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The Court set aside the notices for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Allows Full 54EC Relief Because Investments Were in Two Financial Years; 54EC Deduction Restored as Advance Money Investment Considered Valid; 54F Claim Denied Because Joint Ownership Counts as Second House; Section 54F Exemption Refused Due to Ownership of Multiple Residences; Expense Deduction Rejected Since Firm Interest Cannot […]
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
