The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
The Tribunal held that share capital received from promoters cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68 without tangible evidence. Mere suspicion about source of funds or share premium is insufficient.
The Court held that professional legal work does not convert a residential connection into commercial use. The excess demand raised was ordered to be refunded.
The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officers action after finding clear admission of issuing accommodation bills. Commission at 1% was rightly taxed on both bogus purchases and bogus sales.
Authorities found the land had been sold decades earlier and the MOU acknowledged no possession or rights. The Tribunal affirmed taxation under section 56. The ruling clarifies that an MOU cannot convert non-rights into capital receipts.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a general survey admission by the seller cannot justify additions in every buyers case. Documentary proof of purchases and sales outweighed unsupported allegations.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under Section 148 is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment and additions were quashed as void ab initio.
The ROC held that inability to produce statutory minutes amounts to a clear violation of Section 118. Historical loss of records due to flood does not absolve ongoing compliance obligations.
The Tribunal held that once reassessment is validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can tax any escaped income discovered later. Additions need not relate to the original reopening reason.
