The Assessing Officer imposed penalty after treating disclosed capital gains as business income. The Tribunal ruled that classification disputes, without suppression of facts, cannot justify penalty.
The issue was whether cash and cheque payments could be taxed as unexplained investment in AY 2013–14. The Tribunal held that the major payments pertained to FY 2010–11 and could not be assessed in a later year.
The issue was whether reassessment based on identical, template reasons was valid. The Tribunal held that reopening without independent application of mind amounts to borrowed satisfaction and is invalid in law.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹2.27 crore addition after finding that the capital deposit did not pertain to the assessment year in question. Without a year-wise nexus, section 68 could not be invoked.
The issue was determination of income when the assessee failed to maintain books of account. The Tribunal held that an 8% or 4% estimate was excessive and fixed profit at a reasonable 2% of turnover.
The case examined whether reassessment after four years was valid when the issues were already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as a mere change of opinion and quashed the reassessment.
Recognising the non-commercial nature of a long-standing charitable trust, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The registration application was sent back for reconsideration on merits.
Where the CIT(A) rejected the appeal only on limitation, the Tribunal intervened. It directed fresh adjudication of the penalty after condoning the 380-day delay.
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent affidavit ratifying acts of a power-of-attorney holder revived the agreement and reset limitation. Once ratification was admitted, refusal to execute sale entitled the buyer to specific performance.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner must consider condonation of delay under the amended section 12A. The rejection order was therefore set aside.
