Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The ITAT held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
The ITAT held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
