The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of labour expenses without concrete evidence is unsustainable. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot justify additions when proper documentation exists.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering additional documents.
The court held that issuing multiple demand notices for a single adjudication order is improper. It directed issuance of a composite notice to enable a single appeal.
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that no TDS is liable to be deducted when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in the normal course of running of the restaurant/café. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in fully rejecting the assessee’s explanation linking cash deposits to business sales. However, due to incomplete substantiation, a limited addition of ₹8 lakh was sustained.
