Visakhapatnam ITAT dismisses Revenue appeals, quashing protective additions on cotton mills. Protective assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 invalid as substantive addition was in A.Y. 2017-18.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that reassessment notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after April 1, 2022, are invalid and void ab initio. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, quashing the entire reassessment for lack of proper authority.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
The ITAT Raipur ruled that compensation received for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. This decision confirms the principle of uniform tax relief for all land-losers, irrespective of the acquiring statute, following the Supreme Court’s Tarsem Singh ruling.
ITAT Pune dismissed Revenue’s appeal against Mukund Bhavan Trust, confirming its Sections 11 & 12 exemption. It ruled Sections 13(1)(b) & 13(1)(c) restrictions don’t apply to pre-1961 trusts with protected founding conditions.
The ITAT Kolkata confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.04 Cr addition under Section 68 against Eskag Sanjeevani, ruling that documented unsecured loans received and fully repaid through banking channels cannot be deemed bogus.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the date of a Letter of Intent (LOI), 14.02.2011, constitutes the date of acquisition for a flat, allowing indexation from that date for Long-Term Capital Gains computation.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.22 Cr addition under Section 43CA for AY 2018-19, ruling that the 10% tolerance limit (safe harbor) for the difference between sale consideration and property valuation is a beneficial, curative amendment and thus applies retrospectively from the provision’s insertion.
This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
Invalid 143(2) notice format kills assessment. Kolkata ITAT quashes s.143(3) assessment (Pankhuri Mishra Vs ITO) as notice didn’t specify scrutiny type (limited/complete) per CBDT mandate.
