The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on third-party Excel data after holding that denial of cross-examination of the key witness violated natural justice. The ruling confirms that such denial is fatal where the statement forms the foundation of the addition.
The issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when bogus purchases are disallowed on an estimated basis. The Tribunal held that estimation does not establish concealment, making the penalty unsustainable.
The case examined additions made in Section 153C assessments based on third-party search material. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot stand unless incriminating documents are furnished to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that cash gifts received from relatives covered under section 56(2)(vii) cannot be taxed as unexplained credits. Once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved, section 68 has no application.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings could continue when seized material was handed over after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices are barred by law, rendering the assessment void.
The case examined whether the Assessing Officer could reject a DCF valuation. The Tribunal held that commercial valuation choices, if legally prescribed and supported, cannot be second-guessed.
The Revenue treated seized cash entries as unexplained income under Section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that receipts from agricultural activities are exempt and cannot be taxed merely based on seized notings.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The Tribunal held that gratuity liability transferred to another employer on employee transfer constitutes valid discharge. Deduction cannot be denied merely because payment was not made directly to the employee.
The issue was whether final DRP-based assessments passed beyond statutory timelines are valid. The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 144C must be read with Section 153, rendering delayed final orders void.
