Delhi High Court held that in cases involving multiple parties, the adjudication cannot be done by different Commissionerates ...

The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order ...

The issue was whether reassessment could survive when sanction under section 151 was taken from the wrong authority. The Tribunal held that approval by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDG is a fatal ...

The AO made a ₹90 lakh addition under section 68 despite the case being under limited scrutiny. ITAT held that crossing the approved scope renders the addition and assessment ...

The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element ...

The ITAT ruled that an inadvertent mistake in selecting the assessment year while filing Form 10AB cannot defeat an existing valid registration. Mechanical rejection without record verification was ...

The Tribunal held that deciding an appeal on merits without granting an effective hearing breaches section 250(2) and natural justice. Repeated adjournments alone cannot justify ex-parte disposal, ...

The AO passed a rectification order while the core section 50C addition was pending fresh adjudication. ITAT ruled that such parallel adjudication leads to inconsistency and must be ...

The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could ...

The AO relied on human probability, abnormal price movement and third-party material. ITAT held that without direct evidence against the assessee, LTCG cannot be branded ...

The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash ...

The issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening ...