ITAT deleted addition made u-s/ 56(2)(viib) holding that Revenue was not justified in rejecting the valuation report submitted by the Assessee determining the FMV of shares as per DCF method as per Rule 11UA; Rejecting the valuation report merely based on the disclaimer clause provided in the valuation report is not sustainable, as per ITAT; AO was not justified in rejecting DCF method merely because the projected turnover was not achieved; Reliance placed on ruling in Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd.

HC held that no substantial question of law arose since the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 153A was quashed due to mechanical approval u/s 153D; Proposals seeking approval were submitted to ACIT at 5:02 PM and more than 30 approvals were issued the same day which demonstrated non application of mind; Approvals must reflect some degree of independent satisfaction and mechanical approvals vitiate the assessments; Since the foundational jurisdiction of a lawful Section153D approval was absent, assessments were invalid.

ITAT allowed exemption u/s 54 and 54EC observing that once the receipt is explained and eligible for capital gains computation, the corresponding exemption cannot be denied; AO’s conclusion cannot be sustained since assessee furnished requisite documentation that conclusively established that the Assessee’s wife transferred her 50% share in the property to Assessee in 1995, by entering his name as a joint holder in the share certificate, which is also reflected in the society’s approved resolution; Also, AO failed to demonstrate that how a receipt arising from a registered transfer of a capital asset, already subjected to capital gains computation, could fall within the ambit of Section 56.

Book profit on sale of a depreciable asset forming part of a block cannot be taxed separately once the sale consideration is duly reduced from the block under Section 32 and 43(6)(c); During assessment, AO treated the book profits on sale of car as taxable business income merely because it appeared in the accounts, thus, overlooked the computation; Computation of business income must follow the statutory method and cannot be overridden merely because account standards require recognition of profit on sale of assets.

ITAT held that Assessee is not entitled to challenge AO’s jurisdiction in light of Section 124(3); Assessee failed to respond to any of the notices served by the Revenue, including notices u/s 143(2), 142(1), 274 r.w. Section 271; Assessee is not entitled to question the jurisdiction of the AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice u/s 142(1) or after the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier; Revenue’s ex-parte assessment order confirming addition on account of LTCG, thus upheld by the ITAT.

ITAT quashed reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 issued beyond period of three years due to improper/incorrect sanction as mandated under Section 151(ii)(new regime); Specified authority must be PCCIT, however, in the present case, the notice u/s 148 was issued after obtaining approval from PCIT, which rendered the assessment void ab initio.

ITAT deleted addition u/s 68 in the absence of corroborative material discrediting the Assessee’s fruit-selling business; AO failed to accept the Assessee’s contention to be fruit dealer since no corroborative evidence was submitted, and treated cash deposit of Rs. 1.29 Cr as unexplained cash deposits; Assessee being a fruit dealer was exempted under Karnataka VAT; Confirmation letters of Assessee’s dealers confirmed Assessee’s fruit selling business; Adhoc addition of 8% to be done by AO rather than adding entire Rs. 1.29 Crores u/s 68.

HC quashed CIT(A) order passed without merits; None of the provisions in Section 250 of the Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant, without going into the merits of the case; Section 250(6) specifically stipulates that, the appellate authority shall state the points for determination and the decision thereon in the order; HC directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the Assessee’s appeal and to pass fresh orders on merits.

HC quashed order u/s 148A(d) and consequential reassessment notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18, holding that the same is issued beyond the period of limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 (as amended with effect from April 01, 2021); For AY 2017-18, four years would end on 31.03.2022 and notice was issued on 22.04.2024; No notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2017-18 could be issued on or after 1st April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149; HC Rejected Revenue’s reliance of fifth or sixth proviso and opines fifth proviso cannot apply where the first proviso applies because, if a notice u/s 148 could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices.

HC ruled against the assessee where assessee contended that impugned assessment proceedings ought to have been initiated and concluded u/s 153C, and not u/s 147; As per HC, if incriminating material during a search and seizure procedure is not found, then in that case assessment is to be completed under Section 147 and not u/s 153A or 153C; HC remarked that although the jurisdictional issues can be raised at any point of time, yet raising of such issue for the first time in the second round of writ proceeding, gives an impression that the Assessee only seeks to avoid the statutory forum of appeal and delay final adjudication of the matter.