https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751134 The ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, quashing reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147. The tribunal held that approval for reassessment under section 148A(d) was improperly obtained from Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner, as required when more than three years have elapsed from the assessment year end, following Siemens Financial Services precedent. On merits, the tribunal found the mutual fund transactions were legitimate, not sham or fictitious, where the assessee purchased units, earned dividend, and sold at reduced NAV resulting in capital loss. The transaction did not fall under section 94(7) avoidance provisions, making dividend income exempt and capital loss allowable. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:52:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751134 The ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, quashing reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147. The tribunal held that approval for reassessment under section 148A(d) was improperly obtained from Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner, as required when more than three years have elapsed from the assessment year end, following Siemens Financial Services precedent. On merits, the tribunal found the mutual fund transactions were legitimate, not sham or fictitious, where the assessee purchased units, earned dividend, and sold at reduced NAV resulting in capital loss. The transaction did not fall under section 94(7) avoidance provisions, making dividend income exempt and capital loss allowable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751134