Capital gains were computed without allowing improvement costs due to submission of an incorrect valuation report. The Tribunal held that a bona fide mistake justified reconsideration with correct evidence.
The tribunal held that a legitimate deduction cannot be denied merely due to an inadvertent reporting mistake in the return. The matter was remanded to verify facts and allow the deduction if otherwise admissible.
The core issue was whether lack of knowledge of proceedings justified late appeals. The Tribunal held that notices sent to an inaccessible email amounted to sufficient cause. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred because no condonation petition was filed. Delay without explanation renders the appeal non-maintainable.
The case examined whether interest beyond Section 24 limits could be claimed when loan funds were temporarily used elsewhere. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must verify real deployment of funds before disallowance.
Exporters using the postal route can now claim Duty Drawback, RoDTEP, and RoSCTL benefits. The move creates parity with other export modes and boosts MSME competitiveness.
The court ruled that Section 74 proceedings cannot be invoked in the absence of fraud or wilful suppression, especially where tax and interest were voluntarily paid before investigation.
The dispute centered on whether omission to verify exceptional items prejudices revenue. The Tribunal upheld revision, emphasizing Explanation 2 to section 263. The ruling reinforces that absence of inquiry itself is sufficient ground for revision.
The Court ruled that omission to issue Section 143(2) vitiates reassessment at the root. Such a defect cannot be cured, even if the return is alleged to be defective.
The Court held that Section 197 applications cannot be rejected mechanically to “protect revenue.” Mandatory factors under Rule 28AA, including past assessments and liabilities, must be examined before directing withholding.
