The case involved Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(d for failure to comply with notices during assessment. The Tribunal ruled that completion under section 143(3) negates the basis for penalty.
The Tribunal examined denial of rebate due to technical computation issues. It held that deduction must be granted as income was below ₹7 lakh and statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on third-party software data was invalid as the material was not provided to the assessee. Denial of cross-examination was found to violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid without proving both error and revenue prejudice. The AO’s order was restored as valid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The case involved an addition based on AIR information regarding a property transaction. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the assessee’s documentary evidence remained unchallenged by the department.
The tribunal held that the safe harbour limit applies to valuation determined by the DVO, not just stamp duty value. It ruled in favour of the assessee as the variation was within 10%.
The Tribunal held that the maintainability of the appeal must be based on the correct tax effect and not erroneous figures in Form 36. Since the actual tax effect was below the CBDT threshold, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing strict adherence to monetary limits.
The issue concerns statutory timelines for filing financial statements. Companies must file adopted statements within 30 days of AGM, ensuring compliance with Section 137 to avoid penalties.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
