Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
