The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The issue was whether rejection of books and enhancement of gross profit were justified due to alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld partial relief, holding that GP estimation must be reasonable and supported by facts, not solely by procedural lapses.
The Assessing Officer assumed that no return of income was filed while recording reasons under section 147. The Tribunal ruled that such factually incorrect reasons vitiate the assumption of jurisdiction itself.
The issue was whether stamp duty value on the agreement date could replace the registration-date value for section 56 additions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the claimed earlier payment. Key takeaway: benefit of the proviso depends on proving the agreement and payment date.
The Court ruled that digital illiteracy, lack of transparency, and weak grievance redressal cannot be grounds to deny the 25% quota. It mandated structured rules to make admissions accessible, transparent, and enforceable.
The case examined rejection of registration without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal ruled that deciding against the trust without confronting it on objections violates principles of natural justice. Key takeaway: procedural fairness is mandatory in section 12A proceedings.
Interest was disallowed treating the loan as bogus. Once the loan itself was held genuine, the Tribunal allowed the interest deduction. The ruling confirms that business interest cannot be denied without proof of sham transactions.
Whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed in the society’s hands. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that once cash is admitted to belong to members, no addition under section 68 can be made in the society’s assessment.
Expenditure on tunnel-specific infrastructure was ruled not to give enduring benefit beyond the contract period. The ruling clarifies that longevity alone does not convert temporary project tools into capital assets.
The PCIT sought to revise the assessment for lack of arms length determination. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted when the TPO did not act. The decision reinforces limits on section 263.
