The tribunal held that salary payments, even with TDS and bank transfers, require proof of genuineness and business nexus. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of employee evidence.
The Tribunal recognised that funds could not be used due to a High Court injunction. Such legally restrained non-utilisation cannot be treated as a statutory violation.
The Tribunal ruled that inventory figures from a management Excel sheet, without quantity details or physical verification, cannot form the basis of an addition. Properly recorded GST-compliant sales explained the variance.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
Holding that justice requires a reasoned order after hearing both sides, the Tribunal remanded the appeals. Continued non-cooperation may still permit ex parte disposal.
Finding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond section 151A, the Court quashed the reopening notices. The ruling highlights that reassessment cannot proceed without valid jurisdictional foundation.
The Court held that a conditional stay requiring 20% deposit is not final. Assessees can seek review before the Principal CIT/CIT under CBDT instructions.
The appeals involved common challenges to reassessment proceedings across several years. As CIT(A) had not ruled on these issues, the Tribunal ordered a remand for fresh decision.
The addition was based on suspicion arising from third-party misconduct. The Tribunal reiterated that income tax additions cannot rest on presumptions alone.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
