The Tribunal held that lack of inquiry into a large receipt justified revision under Section 263. It found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The ruling reinforces duty of proper verification.
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The issue involved alleged failure to pass on input tax credit benefits. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh factual determination by the tribunal.
The issue concerned whether the tribunal acted beyond the High Court’s earlier remand directions. The Court granted interim protection and restrained coercive action pending further hearing.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The Tribunal held that consistent investment history and documentary proof established genuineness of share transactions. Additions under Section 68 were deleted due to lack of contrary evidence.
The Court set aside the order because the penalty was not disclosed in the statutory Form DRC-01. It held that demands must be clearly specified in the prescribed notice.
The Court held that affiliation and NOC issuance by universities are statutory duties, not business activities. Therefore, such fees cannot be treated as taxable supply under GST, and related assessment orders were set aside.
The High Court ruled that reopening based on unrelated and non-specific seized material is not permissible. It concluded that no prima facie belief of income escapement could be formed. The decision highlights limits on the use of indirect evidence.
The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. It rejected the reliance on registration date alone. The ruling clarifies timing criteria for capital gains exemption.
