S.151A : Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment – Reassessment issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of FAO – Order is held to be valid on the presumption that the operation of Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT( 2024) 464 ITR 430 ( Bom)( HC) is stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court . [ S. 148 , 151 ,Art. 136 ]

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice –Shall be signed -Validity of reassessment – As per the CBDT Notification dated 31.03.2021, reassessment proceedings initiated prior to 01.04.2021 were to be governed under the old regime, and all functions were to be performed by the Jurisdictional AO- Sanction and jurisdiction is bad – Order of reassessment is quashed Unsigned sanction – Order is quashed and set aside . [ S. 120, 147, 148 ,149, 282A(1) R.127A(1) ]

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged bogus purchases – Estimate of 12% of alleged bogus expenses are affirmed – Pr. CIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ( 2025) 474 ITR 175 / 172 Taxman.com 283 (Bom)( HC) distinguished . [ S. 37(1))

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged out of books Murrum expenses – Where cash expenditure relates to business operations and its incurrence is not disputed, addition under section 69C cannot be made for the entire amount- Estimation of profit element is justified. Addition restricted to 5% of such expenses. [ S. 132 ]

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged investment of unaccounted cash receipts in immoveable properties – The Tribunal held that without tangible evidence of investment, addition under section 69A on account of alleged purchase of immovable property is not justified. Addition deleted .

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged unaccounted cash sales from Scrap and Piling business- Addition of gross receipts is not justified- Applying an average profit rate of 8.56% on such cash receipts is held to be reasonable – Order of CIT( A) is affirmed . [S.115BBE ]

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees – Disallowance is restricted to 30% .[ S. 40(a)(ia),143(3) ]

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Profits and gains from housing projects – Condonation of delay – Genuine hardship- Delay in filing of return of income – Genuine hardship – Claim for deduction under section 80IBA – Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner – Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA , 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment order which is nullity in law – Cannot be revised. [S. 132A, 143(3)]

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless assessment – Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer – On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court- The Court also observed that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised in challenging the Notice issued under Section 148 [ S. 148 ,Art. 226 ]