Where show-cause notice (SCN) that initiated the proceeding did not specifically state or propose that the cancellation would be from a an earlier, retrospective date, the cancellation of the registration should be considered effective only from the date of the show-cause notice.
Quasi-judicial authorities were obliged to render reasoned and speaking orders, and that reasons should have been assigned by the adjudicating authority to the extent whether the circulars adduced by assessee were applicable to their case or not. Accordingly, the High Court held that the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable, proceeding to quash the impugned orders while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
ITAT Rajkot deletes Rs.2.5 lakh cash addition made during demonetization, ruling that the amount was within the non-taxable limit specified by the CBDT for small deposits.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment, deleting Rs. 85 lakh Sec 69C addition. AO cannot travel beyond recorded reasons if the original reason for reopening is not sustained.
Mumbai ITAT quashes ₹1.76 Cr unexplained investment tax on NRI homemaker, ruling joint registration doesn’t justify addition when funds came solely from husband.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening under Section 148 on an incorrect PAN and with mechanical sanction by PCIT is invalid, quashing the Rs. 3.50 crore addition under Section 68 and setting aside reassessment proceedings.
ITAT quashes DCIT’s 153C assessments for Piyush Bongirwar, holding that a single diary page pertaining only to AY 2013-14 cannot justify assessment for later years without specific incriminating material.
ITAT Mumbai allows Nikhil Manjrekar’s Sec 54 claim, directing deletion of LTCG disallowance; substantive proof of property reinvestment sufficed despite technical objection.
ITAT Delhi deletes AO’s ad hoc 50% expense disallowance and excess vessel cost addition for JITF Waterways. Upholds CIT(A)’s reliance on S43(1) Expl. (6) for asset cost.
ITAT Delhi quashes search assessments for Jagat Group, ruling that a single, consolidated approval letter for multiple assessees and years under Section 153D was invalid and mechanical.
