Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that additions under section 153A based on purported bogus Long Term Capital Gains and commission expenses were unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material discovered during the search. Following established precedent, the AO cannot invoke section 153A to reassess completed assessments without search-based incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. However, the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to initiate proceedings under sections 147/148 was held to be beyond jurisdiction, as reopening cannot be indirectly mandated post section 153A adjudication, preserving the finality of proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, clarifying that the CIT(A)'s remit ended with the deletion of the additions, and any advice or compulsion for fresh litigation under section 147 was ultra vires.
The ITAT held that additions under section 153A based on purported bogus Long Term Capital Gains and commission expenses were unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material discovered during the search. Following established precedent, the AO cannot invoke section 153A to reassess completed assessments without search-based incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. However, the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to initiate proceedings under sections 147/148 was held to be beyond jurisdiction, as reopening cannot be indirectly mandated post section 153A adjudication, preserving the finality of proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, clarifying that the CIT(A)'s remit ended with the deletion of the additions, and any advice or compulsion for fresh litigation under section 147 was ultra vires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.