The issue was whether additional rental income could be treated as undisclosed. The Tribunal held that tenant confirmations and bank records proved the declared rent, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether an ex parte appellate order could stand without proper hearing. The Tribunal held that lack of opportunity vitiated the order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The court held that arrest during a GST investigation was unlawful as mandatory safeguards under the BNSS were not followed. Failure to record reasons for arrest rendered the action invalid.
The court examined whether a liquidation recovery application was time-barred. It held that statutory limitation under company law cannot be extended by judicial interpretation.
This explains why genuine shareholders face rejection in IEPF claims due to procedural lapses. The key takeaway is that compliance errors, not ineligibility, cause most failures.
The Tribunal examined whether execution of a development agreement alone triggers capital gains. It held that without consideration or statutory transfer of possession, no capital gains arise.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
The issue was whether penalty could be imposed for disallowance arising from a disclosed change in lease rent accounting. The Tribunal held that a bona fide, disclosed and debatable claim cannot attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The issue is chronic delays in filing Food Safety Compliance Returns. The key takeaway is graded penalties and licence suspension for prolonged non-filing.
The amendment clarifies who qualifies as a retail individual investor in debt issues. It caps eligibility at ₹2 lakh to promote targeted retail participation.
